The Akaka Bill And Secession: The Hawaiian Government Reorganization bill (Akaka bill) is seen by its supporters as a step toward total independence for all of Hawai'i

by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.

SUMMARY:

A velvet revolution is underway in Hawai'i. Activists wanting to rip the 50th star off the flag have been pushing nonviolently for Hawaiian independence for many years. The apology resolution of 1993 (U.S. apology to ethnic Hawaiians for the overthrow of the monarchy) gave great impetus to both the secessionist movement and to demands for race-based group rights, communal land tenure, and megabucks in reparations -- despite assurances from Senator Inouye on the floor of the Senate that the apology bill would not be used in that way.

The Akaka bill now under consideration would be a major boost to the secessionist movement -- indeed, supporters of the Akaka bill, including Senator Akaka himself, go as far as they can go to support secession without actually committing treason. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights relied heavily on the apology resolution to claim that the civil rights of ethnic Hawaiians are violated by the Supreme Court decision in Rice v. Cayetano, and that the Akaka bill should be supported as a way to protect those rights during a transitional period in which ethnic Hawaiians have a perfect right to force the secession of Hawai'i from the United States.

The desire to be an independent nation is logically and emotionally contrary to the concept of having a tribal government that would be subjected to the plenary power of the U.S. Congress and the Department of Interior. The Akaka bill would make ethnic Hawaiians wards of the federal government, not citizens of an independent nation. It appears this conflict between these two positions is irreconcilable. Activists for independence have bitterly opposed the Akaka bill. All ethnic Hawaiians have great nostalgia for their history from before the coming of outsiders, and their history as the Kingdom of Hawai'i -- a nostalgia being intensified by highly-funded TV programs and cultural events intended to build racial pride and resentment toward whites who allegedly stole their land, suppressed their culture and language, and ultimately stole their nation.

All activists for sovereignty (including Akaka bill supporters) have their hearts set on eventual independence. So there is some guilt being laid onto Akaka bill supporters that they might be "selling Manhattan for $24 worth of beads." The loud voice of independence activists opposing the Akaka bill has been heard throughout Hawai'i and all the way to Washington. It's hard for Akaka bill supporters to convince Washington politicians to vote for the bill when large numbers of ethnic Hawaiians loudly oppose it (they are, after all, allegedly the "beneficiaries" of the bill).

However, independence is seen by most sovereigntists as an impossible dream, or at least a long way off; and in the meantime why not accept U.S. government handouts? Huge, powerful institutions want the federal dollars to keep flowing to them, but those noisy independence activists pose a threat to passing the Akaka bill. That's why Akaka supporters are now reaching out to acknowledge and even celebrate the desire for independence, while some independence activists are now saying it's OK to pass the Akaka bill as a temporary guarantee of federal money and political power even while continuing to seek independence. Both independence activists and Akaka bill supporters say the U.S. owes huge reparations to ethnic Hawaiians as damages for the U.S. role in the overthrow and for the annexation of Hawai'i despite protests at the time -- so why not get a down-payment on some of those reparations during the transitional period before full independence?

This essay describes how some independence activists are enlisting in the fight to pass the Akaka bill. More importantly, this essay shows that even government officials (including Senator Akaka himself) who support the Akaka bill have independence as their long-term goal.

The Akaka bill should not be seen as a way to strengthen the ties of Hawai'i to the United States, to make ethnic Hawaiians more patriotic toward America, to dampen demands for independence, or to promote racial reconciliation. On the contrary, the Akaka bill facilitates and enables the Hawaiian independence movement by giving money and political power to race-based institutions harboring people who see themselves as primarily Hawaiians and only secondarily (or not at all) as Americans.

UPDATE: On June 8, 2007, a street protest against the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii was led by secessionists. The "protest" included the participation of Dee Jay Mailer, CEO of the $8-15 Billion Kamehameha Schools, Ann Botticelli, the chief Public relations officer for Kamehameha Schools, the head of the Center for Hawaiian Studies at the University of Hawaii, various personnel from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, and the cooperation of the Democrat Party. Thus this "protest" was actually an attempt to silence GRIH through intimidation. What makes the event relevant to this webpage on secession is that ALL THOSE POWERFUL INSTITUTIONS WERE ACTING IN UNISON UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF THE SECESSIONIST MOVEMENT. See webpage "Grassroot Institute of Hawaii -- A June 8, 2007 attempt by Kamehameha Schools and OHA, led by Hawaiian sovereignty secessionists, to intimidate GRIH" at
http://www.angelfire.com/planet/bigfiles40/GRIH060807.html

UPDATE AUGUST 3, 2012: YouTube video, 92 minutes, of a meeting about the goals and procedures of the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission authorized under Act 195 of 2011 to establish a racial registry for a future Native Hawaiian tribe. Active participants include former Governor John Waihee, who is chairman of the Commission, and Mahealani Wendt, former head of the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation [when her surname was Kamau'u]. All participants make clear that the state-recognized tribe will pave the way toward total independence. The 92 minute video is fully available instantly, thus allowing viewers to click or drag the timeline to browse through the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2sBIg74nWI&feature=player_embedded#!

===============

ORDER OF TOPICS:

INTRODUCTION: EXPLAINING THE CONFLICT BETWEEN HAWAIIAN INDEPENDENCE AND THE AKAKA BILL.

INDEPENDENCE ACTIVIST LEADER HAYDEN BURGESS, ALIAS POKA LAENUI, EXPLAINS IN THE OHA NEWSPAPER WHY HE SUPPORTS THE AKAKA BILL AS A STEP TOWARD INDEPENDENCE. OHA HEAD ADMINISTRATOR CLYDE NAMU'O TELLS INDEPENDENCE ACTIVISTS "SUPPORT OF AKAKA BILL DOES NOT MEAN OPPOSITION TO INDEPENDENCE FROM THE UNITED STATES ... [WHICH] COULD STILL BE PURSUED."

SENATOR AKAKA HIMSELF AFFIRMS HIS HEART LIES WITH INDEPENDENCE, AND SAYS THE AKAKA BILL DOES NOTHING TO INTERFERE WITH IT

THE SENATE OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I IN 2001 UNANIMOUSLY PASSED A RESOLUTION AUTHORED BY POKA LAENUI CALLING UPON THE UNITED NATIONS TO INVESTIGATE THE ILLEGALITY OF THE STATEHOOD VOTE OF 1959 AND IMPLYING THAT THE UNITED NATIONS SHOULD SUPERVISE A PLEBISCITE OFFERING THE OPTION OF INDEPENDENCE. THE COMMITTEE REPORTS ACCOMPANYING THE RESOLUTION ARE EVEN MORE EXPLICIT IN SUPPORTING INDEPENDENCE (THE HAWAI'I LEGISLATURE ALSO UNANIMOUSLY PASSED A RESOLUTION, IN MORE THAN ONE YEAR, SUPPORTING THE AKAKA BILL)

THE APOLOGY RESOLUTION OF 1993 WAS CORRECTLY DESCRIBED ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE IN 1993 AS A BASIS OR JUSTIFICATION FOR RACE-BASED GROUP RIGHTS, RACE-BASED COMMUNAL LAND TENURE, REPARATIONS, AND TOTAL SECESSION. SENATOR INOUYE, SUPPORTING THE APOLOGY RESOLUTION, SAID AT THE TIME THAT IT WOULD NEVER BE USED IN SUCH A WAY; THAT IT WAS A SIMPLE APOLOGY. BUT INDEED THE APOLOGY RESOLUTION HAS BEEN USED IN ALL THOSE WAYS, AND IS NOW A MAJOR ELEMENT IN THE AKAKA BILL CITED AS JUSTIFICATION FOR FEDERAL RECOGNITION OF ETHNIC HAWAIIANS.

THE U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS SPONSORED A FORUM IN SEPTEMBER 2000 TO SUPPORT THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF "NATIVE HAWAIIANS" ALLEGEDLY UNDER THREAT FROM THE U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION IN RICE V. CAYETANO. THE PURPOSE OF THE FORUM WAS TO EMBRACE THE APOLOGY RESOLUTION AND TO ENDORSE THE AKAKA BILL AS A WAY TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THE APOLOGY DESPITE THE COURT DECISION. THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE FORUM PUBLISHED BY USCCR CONTAIN SHOCKING LANGUAGE ASSERTING A RIGHT FOR NATIVE HAWAIIANS TO FORCE THE SECESSION OF HAWAI'I FROM THE UNITED STATES AS A MATTER OF CIVIL RIGHTS. THUS THE USCCR IN 2000, AND ITS LOCAL HAWAII ADVISORY COMMITTEE, SUPPORTED THE AKAKA BILL AS A STEP ALONG THE WAY TO THE SECESSION OF HAWAI'I.

THE OHA WEBSITE INCLUDES TOTAL INDEPENDENCE AS ONE OF THE SOVEREIGNTY OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO ETHNIC HAWAIIANS AS A RESULT OF PASSING THE AKAKA BILL. OHA ADMINISTRATOR CLYDE NAMU'O HAS ASSURED INDEPENDENCE ACTIVISTS THAT THE AKAKA BILL COULD BE A STEP TOWARD INDEPENDENCE. OHA PAID TRAVEL EXPENSES AND HONORARIUM FOR RADICAL ANTI-AMERICAN FRANCIS BOYLE, PROFESSOR OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS, TO COME TO HAWAI'I IN DECEMBER 2004 FOR A SERIES OF LECTURES IN SUPPORT OF HAWAIIAN INDEPENDENCE.

A SYMPOSIUM WAS HELD AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN NEW YORK APRIL 15-16, 2005 ON THE TOPIC OF ACHIEVING SOVEREIGN INDEPENDENCE FOR OPPRESSED PEOPLE SUBJUGATED BY THE UNITED STATES, INCLUDING AMERICAN INDIAN TRIBES, PUERTO RICO, HAWAI'I, GUAM, AND AMERICAN SAMOA. THE PROGRAM FOR THE SYMPOSIUM IS COPIED BELOW. 25% OF ALL THE MAJOR PRESENTATIONS ARE FOCUSED ON HAWAI'I. PRESENTERS INCLUDE HAWAIIAN INDEPENDENCE ACTIVISTS ALONG WITH THE PROFESSOR WHO WROTE THE HAWAIIAN APOLOGY RESOLUTION AND IS A SUPPORTER OF THE AKAKA BILL.

===============

INTRODUCTION: EXPLAINING THE CONFLICT BETWEEN HAWAIIAN INDEPENDENCE AND THE AKAKA BILL.

The desire to be independent is totally contrary to the concept of having a tribal government that would be subjected to the plenary power of the U.S. Congress and the Department of Interior. The Akaka bill would make ethnic Hawaiians wards of the federal government, not citizens of an independent nation. It appears this conflict between these two positions is irreconcilable. But some leading independence activists are now saying the Akaka bill should be welcomed as a step toward independence, because it will ensure billions of dollars of race-based government handouts even while allowing the independence struggle to move forward. Supporters of the Akaka bill are encouraging the independence activists to feel that way, partly because Akaka bill supporters want to put an end to opposition from the independence activists, and partly because the emotional and spiritual heart of all Hawaiian sovereignty supporters is on the side of independence, including Akaka bill supporters. Almost everybody in "the movement" wants eventual independence; the tactical question for the moment is whether the Akaka bill will help or hurt the coming of independence. Let's see how things got to this point.

Over a period of many years the Hawaiian sovereignty movement has been characterized by a great multiplicity of different pictures of what sovereignty should look like and how it should be achieved. Many dozens of sovereignty groups have come and gone. Some fractured into several smaller groups, others merged, and some simply faded away. At times it seemed there were more groups than there were individuals; partly because there were so many wannabe Chiefs and so few willing to be humble, subservient Indians. Bitter rhetoric and mean-spirited infighting were the rule rather than the exception. For example, some independence activists felt that only ethnic Hawaiians should be allowed to vote or exercise leadership because Hawai'i for many centuries had belonged exclusively to ethnic Hawaiians; and the only way to ensure that Hawai'i is for Hawaiians is to hold in check the powers of the vastly larger number of those with no native ancestry. But other independence activists pointed out that the Kingdom of Hawai'i allowed locally-born non-natives full rights, along with non-native immigrants who became "naturalized."

Following the Rice v. Cayetano decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in February 2000, a sense of urgency forced the recognition that there is a fundamental cleavage between ethnic nationalists who favor total independence vs. racial separatists who favor the model of an Indian tribe. The numerous, badly-splintered independence groups began to coalesce, while the supporters of the tribal model came together under the auspices of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and other organizations to support the Akaka bill. Almost no attention was paid to the vast majority of ethnic Hawaiians, and all Hawai'i's people, who want to keep Hawai'i unified as a single state government under the sovereignty of the United States, with full equality under the law for all races. The newspapers, radio, and television were all excited by the "struggle for sovereignty." The focus was on which model of Hawaiian sovereignty would be adopted, rather than whether such a thing should happen at all.

The Hawaiian ethnic nationalists (including some people with no native ancestry) want to restore Hawai'i to its former status as an independent nation. But in addition to independence, they also invoke the modern concept of "indigenous rights" to demand that those persons with native ancestry must have superior voting rights and property rights, while anyone lacking a drop of the magic blood would have voting rights limited to certain topics and property rights limited to certain areas. But whatever internal laws might be in place for racial relations in an independent Hawai'i, the main point is that Hawai'i would be independent.

The desire to be independent is totally contrary to the concept of having a tribal government that would be subjected to the plenary power of the U.S. Congress and the Department of Interior. The Akaka bill would make ethnic Hawaiians wards of the federal government, not citizens of an independent nation.

From the perspective of the independence activists, the worst thing about the Akaka bill is that the creation of a Hawaiian tribe under the authority of the United States can be regarded as a waiver of any right to independence under international law. It's not that the U.S. creates the tribe -- that's not the problem, because under "international law" a foreign government can never unilaterally cancel the right of a different nation to assert independence. The problem is that by enrolling in the tribe, the ethnic Hawaiians accept their status as falling under the power of the United States. It seems quite logical that anyone who signs up for the tribe would thereby be waiving any "rights" under "international law" to assert independence. For example, if someone is injured in an automobile accident and later accepts a check from an insurance company as a "settlement" compensating him for the injuries, the cashing of that check is a waiver of any further right to sue for damages. If a tribal government formed by ethnic Hawaiians voluntarily enrolling in it can fairly be said to speak on their behalf, then the tribal council's acceptance of the plenary power of Congress would clearly be an exercise of self-determination to waive any future claim to independence. And that waiver would apply to all ethnic Hawaiians, including individuals who might disagree with it -- just as Congress can declare war and force men to serve in the military even if some of those men oppose the war or think Congress should not have that power to compel their service.

The purists among the independence activists see the Akaka bill as an offer from the United States to give political recognition to a race-based entity of ethnic Hawaiians with governmental powers over its members and with the right to negotiate on behalf of the group; in return for ethnic Hawaiians giving up claims to independence and claims to aboriginal land title. Some activists believe the title "Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization" bill is exactly correct -- that acceptance of this bargain by ethnic Hawaiians would constitute a revolt against the government of the Kingdom of Hawai'i which they believe still continues to be the rightful government. The Akaka bill would thus facilitate a legitimate overthrow of the Kingdom as an independent nation, and its replacement by a tribal government under the plenary power of Congress, accompanied by an extinguishment of land claims and claims to independent sovereignty. The purists see the Akaka bill as a plot by the United States to legitimize what has until now been its illegal occupation of Hawai'i. They see the Akaka bill as an invitation to commit treason by overthrowing the independent Kingdom of Hawai'i and replacing it with a U.S. puppet regime called the "Native Hawaiian governing entity" that would be subject to the plenary power of Congress and the U.S. Department of Interior.

But some highly intelligent activists (including an attorney and some university professors), with great credibility because of long-term leadership in the independence movement, are saying that the Akaka bill would not interfere with eventual independence and would provide much-needed financial support and political power during the transition to independence. An analogy might be that when a soldier or civilian contractor gets captured and tortured and makes statements while a knife is held to his throat, such statements are made under duress and therefore are not valid. Thus ethnic Hawaiians, oppressed for over a century and held captive under the boot of the United States, can accept whatever handouts the oppressor offers them, and can make whatever statements they need to make in order to get food and water to stay alive (i.e., enroll as members of the Akaka tribe), without fear that such statements will be held against them later.

There is a common core of beliefs and attitudes shared by all sovereignty activists, both those seeking independence and those supporting the Akaka bill. Those core attitudes include racial separatism, ethnic nationalism, anti-Americanism, and ethnic Hawaiian racial supremacy. Anti-white racism ranges from mild resentment against today's whites for bad things whites did to Hawaiians long ago (including inadvertent things like bringing diseases which decimated the native population), to virulent hatred of whites. For details about the common core attitudes shared by independence activists and Akaka bill supporters, see:

The main reasons offered in support of the Native Hawaiian Recognition bill are either false or irrelevant. The bill's primary focus is racial separatism. The purpose is to protect racial entitlement programs from legal challenges, and to establish a separate apartheid government inside the State of Hawai'i restricted to ethnic Hawaiians. Supporters of the bill say it is not about race -- they say its purpose is to protect indigenous rights, self-determination, and cultural preservation; but careful study shows that is false. Claims about illegal overthrow of the monarchy, illegal annexation, and the apology bill raise the specter of secession but are not relevant to support a bill for establishment of tribal status for ethnic Hawaiians as a political entity inside the United States. For further analysis of points raised in this paragraph, see:
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/AkakaRaceNotNation.html

Even the non-violent character of Hawai'i's velvet revolution is getting a bit shaky. For example, one of the leading supporters of the Akaka bill is the "Reverend" Charles Kauluwehi Maxwell Senior, who is also the Chairman of the Hawai'i Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and who served as chairman of some important public hearings related to the Akaka bill from 1998 to the present. "Reverend" Maxwell has repeatedly told the people of Hawai'i that ethnic Hawaiians have strong historical grievances and are therefore entitled to land, money, and political power -- and then he couples that with a blatant reminder that Native Hawaiians were a warrior people; implying that they could very well go on the warpath again if their demands are not met. Making such threats of violence is, of course, already a form of actual violence. For documentation of Maxwell's threats, see:
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/maxwellwarrior.html

============

INDEPENDENCE ACTIVIST LEADER HAYDEN BURGESS, ALIAS POKA LAENUI, EXPLAINS IN THE OHA NEWSPAPER WHY HE SUPPORTS THE AKAKA BILL AS A STEP TOWARD INDEPENDENCE. OHA HEAD ADMINISTRATOR CLYDE NAMU'O TELLS INDEPENDENCE ACTIVISTS "SUPPORT OF AKAKA BILL DOES NOT MEAN OPPOSITION TO INDEPENDENCE FROM THE UNITED STATES ... [WHICH] COULD STILL BE PURSUED."

Hayden Burgess, alias "Poka Laenui" is a long-time leader of the Hawaiian independence movement. He loudly proclaims that he has not paid state or federal income tax since 1979, on the grounds that Hawai'i is not legitimately a part of the United States. He wrote a resolution that was actually passed unanimously by the Senate of the State of Hawai'i calling upon the United Nations to investigate the alleged illegality of the statehood vote of 1959 with a view toward having the U.N. supervise a plebiscite offering independence. These points are further developed at:
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/AkakaPoka.html
The Hawai'i state Senate resolution he wrote appears in full farther down in this webpage, along with official committee reports from the Senate committees that held hearings and recommended passing the resolution, showing that the Senators agree with Poka's views.

But on March 15, 2005 Poka Laenui published a letter in the Maui News announcing his support for the Akaka bill as a way to keep federal dollars flowing to ethnic Hawaiians while at the same time continuing to pursue independence under "international law." He published another essay in the OHA monthly newspaper for April 2005 containing nearly identical language. The significance of the article in the OHA newspaper is that OHA is spending millions of dollars lobbying for the Akaka bill, and is happy to publish the endorsement of the bill by Poka Laenui (who, incidentally, was an OHA trustee many years ago).

I agree in full with Scott Crawford's historical recitation of the multiplicity of races who made up the Hawaiian nation (Letters, March 9). I also agree in full with his conclusion that the Hawaiian nation should be able to arise again in the form of a nation state, i.e., independence from the United States of America.

Placed in contrast to those historical facts and preferred course of our Hawaiian nation, he makes the Akaka Bill an "either/or" proposition to independence. This is not so.

The Akaka Bill is a small, inadequate step to fully address the illegality of the overthrow and the wresting of self-determination from our Hawaiian nation. But it can be an important step to move us along that way, addressing the current social, educational, cultural and economic needs of our Native Hawaiian population, whether or not they elect to enlist in the cause of Hawaiian independence.

The passage of the Akaka Bill will in no way retard or thwart the struggle for sovereignty. Like the Office of Hawaiian Affairs that was never meant to be the substitute for our independence, it could and has served to bring us one step closer to independence.

The times now call for a new framework in which to plan our future. Rather than the continued "either/or" approach, let us consider the the Akaka Bill as an "and" approach. We can accept the Akaka Bill and continue to strive toward our Hawaiian independence, historical justice and a brighter future.

Poka Laenui
Waianae, Oahu

-------------------

The following article was published as a rebuttal to an article by a "purist" independence activist who urged readers to reject the Akaka bill so that ethnic Hawaiians can determine their own future as an independent nation. This article is taken from Ka Wai Ola O OHA of April 2005 [monthly newspaper of the State of Hawai'i Office of Hawaiian Affairs] page 16, "Federal Recognition Forum"
http://www.oha.org/pdf/kwo05/0504/16.pdf

I support Hawaiian independence, but that doesn't mean I must oppose the Akaka Bill. Yet I find too often those two positions being placed in opposition to one another. It's part of that "or" syndrome: either Akaka or independence.

The Akaka Bill is not a substitute to the independent nation. It is a small, inadequate step to fully address the illegality of the overthrow and the wresting of self-determination from our Hawaiian nation. But it can be an important step to move us along that way. It can be an important step in addressing the current social, educational, cultural and economic needs of our native Hawaiian population, whether or not they select to enlist in the cause of Hawaiian independence.

The passage of the Akaka Bill will in no way retard or thwart the struggle for our sovereign nation. Like the Office of Hawaiian Affairs that was never meant to be the substitute for our independence, it could, and has, served to bring us one step closer to independence. Instead of the Akaka Bill standing as an "or " proposition to Hawaiian sovereignty, I see it as an "and" solution. Instead of dividing the causes among Hawaiian proponents between federal Native Hawaiian recognition vs. Hawaiian independence, such causes can be joined together. One is not exclusive of the other. We need not be divided on this issue.

The times now call for a new framework in which we plan our future. I can accept the Akaka Bill and continue to strive toward our Hawaiian independence. Hawaiians, whether defined by race or by national allegiance, can continue to march hand in hand toward our historical justice and our brighter future.

Poka Laenui,
Wai'anae

-------------------

The following is another article by "Poka Laenui", April 2006 (one year later in the same Office of Hawaiian Affairs newspaper). In this article he makes clear that the U.S. has no right to do military training anywhere in Hawai'i because the illegal U.S. invasion of Hawai'i in 1893 was an "aggressive war" as defined by the United Nations in 1974, and that under U.N. "international law" no territorial acquisition resulting from a war of aggression can be recognized as lawful. He then goes on to claim that the war in Iraq is illegal and immoral, which is another reason why the U.S. military should not be allowed to use Makua Valley for training. Although the newspaper editor publishes the usual disclaimer that the views in this article are not necessarily those of OHA; the fact remains that OHA repeatedly publishes articles by this man and others hostile to the U.S. and asserting that the U.S. is illegally occupying Hawai'i. OHA never publishes letters or articles expressing loyalty to the U.S. or asserting that the U.S. has rightful sovereignty in Hawai'i -- either nobody who reads the OHA newspaper feels that way, or nobody dares express such views to an audience they know will be hostile, or else OHA suppresses their views. In any case, these are the views that will be ratified and empowered if the Akaka bill passes.

The U.S. military has no "right" to train for combat on any Hawaiian soil. Following U.S.aggression against Hawai'i in 1893, any "right" the U.S. holds in Hawai'i is nothing more than rhetoric masking for reality. The definition of aggression included in U.N. General Assembly Resolution 3314 of 14
December 1974 states:

"Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State [...]

"1. No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression.

"2. A war of aggression is a crime against international peace. Aggression gives rise to international responsibility.

"3. No territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression is or shall be recognized as lawful."

It follows, therefore, that the U.S. government's "legal" lease to Mäkua Valley is nothing more than manipulation between the feds and the state.

I'm against U.S. military training, not only because such activity despoils the cultural, religious and environmental nature of the land. I'm against it because of the grand lies now being perpetrated in Hawai'i about the U.S. commitment to peace and its war against terrorism, handled as flippantly as if it were a sporting event. The U.S. is not committed to peace. It is instead committed to its own expansion in order to enjoy its "thriving global economy." And it hopes to accomplish this expansion through the suppression of all peoples who possess the goods or services for this economy but who oppose U.S. control.

Why should Hawai'i support a war in Iraq where it is clear the U.S. had no business attacking that nation in the first place? War on terrorism? How was Iraq committing terrorism against the U.S.? If anything, it has been and continues to be the reverse. It is none other than the U.S. who is committing terrorism against the people of Iraq on a daily basis – bombing homes and villages, killing hundreds of innocents, then pasting on a label of "suspected insurgent strongholds." The U.S. had no business going into Iraq, and it has no business remaining there another day. Live-fire training at Mäkua for duty in Iraq? Give me a break. The Iraqis fighting back are using home-made explosives and small arms. U.S.armaments are a hundred times more powerful than theirs. What further "live-fire" training does the U.S. Army need?

Yes, the U.S. is indeed a nation at war! But it is not "global terrorism" that is the enemy. The enemies are the ghosts of America's past and of America's present (yes, including its historical and current occupation of Hawai'i).

The U.S. war is nothing more than young and poor fools made into soldiers to hold onto the ill-gotten gains of corporate America. The U.S. is finally being called upon to answer for its past and present deeds. It is being called upon to come face-to-face with its greed. To win this war, the U.S. must resort to the ultimate weapon: truth. It must turn to the ultimate force: love. It must take the long path to peace: confession. And it must beg for forgiveness. The United States of America can no longer take the path of "exceptionalism" as if it is exempt from the laws of humanity. It must accept that it, too, is bound by the rules of fair play, justice and
humanity. When the U.S.succeeds in that kind of victory, the whole world will be the winners. In the meantime, leave Mäkua and all Hawaiian lands alone.

[OHA newspaper Editor's note]: Longtime Hawaiian sovereignty activist Pökä Laenui is a Vietnam-era Air Force veteran and a former OHA trustee. The views expressed in this community discussion column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

About 20 members of the "Hui Pu," or gathering, of Native Hawaiian groups that oppose the Akaka bill on a number of grounds, showed up yesterday at OHA's regularly scheduled meeting in Honolulu, demanding that OHA spend money to explain the positions of those against the controversial measure. ... OHA administrator Clyde Namu'o said trustees' support of the Akaka bill does not mean opposition to independence from the United States, which many of the Hui Pu groups want. Namu'o said many of those in the independence movement are concerned that once federal recognition is achieved, a drive for independence may be diminished. "But that remains to be seen," Namu'o said. "If, truly, the Hawaiian community feels independence is the noblest of goals, regardless of whether federal recognition comes about, it could still be pursued." Namu'o noted that OHA has given some support to the independence movement, including sponsoring a visit from a noted scholar... [Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law, wrote a constitution for the "Nation of Hawai'i" headed by convicted felon Dennis "bumpy" Kanahele. Boyle also drafted a document and submitted it directly to the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Keanu Sai, convicted felon and self-proclaimed Regent Pro-Tem of the Kingdom of Hawai'i. That document was filed under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution giving the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to hear complaints against the United States by ambassadors of foreign governments. The document demanded U.S. withdrawal from its belligerent military occupation of the (still-living) Kingdom of Hawai'i. See section on Professor Boyle, below.]

================================

SENATOR AKAKA HIMSELF AFFIRMS HIS HEART LIES WITH INDEPENDENCE, AND SAYS THE AKAKA BILL DOES NOTHING TO INTERFERE WITH IT

Following are excerpts from speeches given by Senator Akaka over a period of several years, and posted on the Senator's own official website. They are arranged in chronological order. Some excerpts explicitly state that the Akaka bill does not interfere with the quest for independence. Some excerpts use the word "sovereignty" in a way that, in context, can only refer to independence and not the mere tribal sovereignty of a domestic dependent nation. Several different speeches over a period of several years include the carefully chosen phrase "... as long as we are Americans and as long as Hawaii is a part of the United States, I firmly believe the United States must fulfill its responsibility towards its indigenous peoples." -- a phrase which clearly holds open the possibility (even the hope) that someday Hawai'i will be liberated from the grasp of the U.S., but that in the meantime the U.S. owes certain things to ethnic Hawaiians. One speech includes the clear statement: "Let me be clear - It is not my intention, nor the intention of the delegation, to preclude efforts of Native Hawaiians at the international level. The scope of this bill is limited to federal law." Senator Akaka constantly reminds his listeners about the overthrow of the independent Kingdom of Hawai'i, clearly insinuating that the remedy for that would be to restore full independence (but since that cannot be done, as yet, and as a Senator I am limited by the confines of U.S. law, then we'll do the best we can to provide a measure of limited tribal sovereignty until such time as other actions at the international level can bring us to full independence). One final item is a short speech given on the floor of the Senate on July 31, 1990 to commemorate "Hawaiian Flag Day" -- a thinly disguised commemoration of the July 31 holiday of the Hawaiian Kingdom known as Sovereighty Restoration Day, in honor of July 31 1843 when Britain returned sovereignty to King Kauikeaouli Kamehameha III after a rogue British naval captain had taken control of Hawai'i for several months (today's Hawaiian independence activists celebrate this holiday annually, with a ceremonial lowering of the American flag and raising of the Hawaiian flag).

S. 746 focuses solely on the federal relationship and does not preclude Native Hawaiians from continuing their efforts at the international level. I'm aware that this bill has been called the "sovereignty bill." The issue of sovereignty is to be determined by the Native Hawaiian community. This bill was never intended to determine the sovereignty issue. Rather, this bill addresses the federal relationship between Native Hawaiians and the United States and ensures that the United States fulfills its responsibility towards Hawaii's indigenous peoples, Native Hawaiians.

Let me be clear - It is not my intention, nor the intention of the delegation, to preclude efforts of Native Hawaiians at the international level. The scope of this bill is limited to federal law.

----------------

http://www.senate.gov/~akaka/speeches/2002715A16.html

"For the Love of Our Country: America's First Citizens and Their Contributions to the United States"

As indigenous peoples, we never relinquished our inherent rights to sovereignty. We were a government that was overthrown. While our history in Hawaii is one filled with emotion and despair, Native Hawaiians have preserved their culture, tradition, subsistence rights, language, and distinct communities. We have tried to hold on to our homeland. Hawaii is our homeland. I am Native Hawaiian and Chinese. I appreciate the culture and ethnicity of my ancestors. I can trace my Chinese roots back to China. My Native Hawaiian roots, however, are in Hawaii because it is our homeland. I am proud to be an American, and I am proud to have served my country in the military. I am proud to serve this great country as a United States Senator.

As long as Hawaii is a part of the United States, the United States must fulfill its responsibility to Hawaii's indigenous peoples. ...

Misinformation is being spread in Hawaii regarding this bill as precluding sovereignty for Native Hawaiians. This cannot be further from the truth. This legislation deals with the United States' legal and political relationship with Hawaii's indigenous peoples within the context of federal law.

As I stated before, as long as we are Americans and as long as Hawaii is a part of the United States, I firmly believe the United States must fulfill its responsibility towards its indigenous peoples. This bill accomplishes that goal.

--------------

http://www.senate.gov/~akaka/speeches/2002925B41.html

Remarks to the First Annual Native Hawaiian Conference
Honolulu, Hawaii

September 12, 2002

As indigenous peoples, we never relinquished our inherent rights to sovereignty. We were a government that was overthrown. While our history in Hawaii is one filled with emotion and despair, Native Hawaiians have preserved their culture, tradition, subsistence rights, language, and distinct communities. We have tried to hold on to our homeland. Hawaii for us, is our homeland. I am proud to be an American and I am proud to have served my country in the military.

As long as Hawaii is a part of the United States, I believe the United States must fulfill its responsibility to Hawaii's indigenous peoples.

While Congress has treated Native Hawaiians in a manner similar to American Indians and Alaska Natives through the enactment of over 150 statutes, the federal policy of self-determination and self-governance has not been extended to Native Hawaiians. I believe it is imperative to clarify the existing legal and political relationship between the United States and Native Hawaiians by providing Native Hawaiians with federal recognition for the purposes of a government-to-government relationship. Therefore, because the legislation I have offered is based on the political and legal relationship between the United States and its indigenous peoples, which has been upheld for many, many years, by the United States Supreme Court, based on the Indian Commerce Clause, I vehemently disagree with the mischaracterization of this legislation as race-based.

Misinformation is being spread in Hawaii regarding this bill as precluding sovereignty for Native Hawaiians. This cannot be further from the truth.

This legislation deals with the United States legal and political relationship with Hawaii's indigenous peoples within the context of federal law. As I stated before, I firmly believe the United States must fulfill its responsibility towards its indigenous peoples. This bill accomplishes that goal.

--------------------

http://www.senate.gov/~akaka/speeches/2005125B01.html

Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act

Senate Floor Speech

January 25, 2005

Mr. President, some have characterized this bill as race-based legislation.

As indigenous peoples, Native Hawaiians never relinquished their inherent rights to sovereignty. We were a government that was overthrown.

While the history of the Native Hawaiian government ended in 1893 with great emotion and despair, inspired by the dignity and grace of Queen Liliuokalani, Native Hawaiians have preserved their culture, tradition, subsistence rights, language, and distinct communities. We have tried to hold on to our homeland.

Hawaii, for us, is our homeland.

I am Native Hawaiian and Chinese. I appreciate the culture and ethnicity of my ancestors. I can trace my Chinese roots back to Fukien Province in China. My Native Hawaiian roots, however, are in Hawaii because it is our Hawaiian homeland.

My Chinese ancestors came to Hawaii to build a better life. My Native Hawaiian grandparents and parents had America come into their homeland and forever change their lives. This is a profound difference.

I am proud to be an American, and I am proud to have served my country in the military.

As long as Hawaii is a part of the United States, however, I believe the United States must fulfill its responsibility to Hawaii's indigenous peoples. ...

It is this generation, however, that is growing impatient with the lack of progress in efforts to resolve longstanding issues. It is this generation that does not understand why we have not discussed these matters. It is this generation that cannot believe that we, as Native Hawaiians, have let the situation continue for 110 years.

There is an active minority within this generation, spurred by frustration and sadness, that embraces independence from the United States.

It is for this generation that I bring this bill forward to ensure that there is a structured process to address these issues.

My point is that Hawaii's people, both Native Hawaiians and non-Native Hawaiians, are no longer willing to pretend that the longstanding issues resulting from the overthrow do not exist.

We need the structured process that this bill provides, first in reorganizing the Native Hawaiian governing entity, and second by providing that entity with the opportunity to negotiate and resolve issues with the Federal and State governments to alleviate the growing mistrust, misunderstanding, anger, and frustration about these matters in Hawaii. This can only be done through a government-to-government relationship. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in enacting this legislation.

--------------------

*** Note from website editor Ken Conklin: It is surely far more than mere coincidence that peculiar phrasing closely similar to that used by Senator Akaka is also used by a supporter of the Akaka bill who was the author of the 1993 apology resolution and who gives speeches about the future liberation of U.S. territories including Hawai'i. Davianna McGregor, Professor of Ethnic Studies at the University of Hawai'i, was the author of the Apology Resolution passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1993, placing the United States on record apologizing to ethnic Hawaiians for the U.S. role in the 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom. Professor McGregor has consistently supported the Akaka bill to recognize ethnic Hawaiians as comparable to an Indian tribe. In a major commentary in the Honolulu Advertiser of April 25, 2004 she used the phrase: "as long as Hawai'i is under the United States." In context, here is what she said: "I support the unique and distinct rights and entitlements of Native Hawaiians as ancestral vested rights of inheritance from our ancestors who first settled and established sovereignty over the Hawaiian archipelago. The Akaka bill affords the best protection for these rights as long as Hawai'i is under the United States." See:
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Apr/25/op/op10a.html
Professor McGregor was a major presenter at a symposium at Columbia University (New York) on April 15, 2005 devoted to seeking independence for oppressed people subjugated by the United States including American Indian tribes, Puerto Rico, Hawai'i, Guam, and America Samoa. Details of that symposium are provided in a later section of this webpage.

---------------------

On July 31, 1990 Senator Akaka made a speech on the Senate floor to commemorate "Hawaiian Flag Day." However, that date carries a special meaning for Hawaiian independence activists, because it was a holiday of the Kingdom of Hawai'i known as "Ka La Ho'iho'i Ea" -- Sovereignty Restoration Day. The Kingdom holiday was in honor of the event on July 31, 1843 when Britain returned sovereignty to King Kauikeaouli Kamehameha III several months after a rogue British naval captain had seized sovereignty for Britain. For the past 15-20 years, Sovereignty Restoration Day has been celebrated by Hawaiian independence activists with a festival of speeches at Thomas Square park in Honolulu, including a ceremonial lowering of an American flag and raising of the Hawaiian flag. Thus this speech by Senator Akaka shows his heart lies with sovereign independence. The speech is also notable because it includes an often-repeated lie about the Hawaiian flag being cut up with the pieces being distributed as souvenirs -- Akaka can't even tell the lie correctly, because the usual version of the story places the event of the shredded flag at annexation in 1898, not the overthrow of 1893. A webpage showing that the shredded flag story is a lie, and documenting how that lie is perpetuated, is at:
http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles2/HawnFlagCutUpSouv1898.html

HAWAII COMMEMORATES ITS FLAG (Senate - July 31, 1990)
** From the Congressional record for the Senate, on that date **

[Page: S11232]

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure today to join the people of my home State of Hawaii in saluting the Hawaiian flag. Today, July 31, marks Hawaiian Flag Day, or `La Hae Hawai'i'.

The Hawaiian flag, also known as the Kamehameha flag, flies proudly as a living symbol of a people and their beloved land. It is the only flag which has flown over a royal kingdom, an American territory, and finally, in 1959, a full-fledged State in our Union.

Mr. President, look at the flag and you will immediately notice the Union Jack of the United Kingdom in its upper left-hand corner, which stands as a tribute to the important role the British played in Hawaii's early history. The flag also has eight stripes representing the eight major islands in the Hawaiian chain.

The Hawaiian flag also symbolizes a once sovereign nation which was overthrown by business leaders in 1893. It was at this time that the Hawaiian flag was lowered, cut into pieces, and given to the crowd as souvenirs. The American flag was then raised in its place and it was not until Hawaii become a U.S. territory that the Hawaiian flag officially flew again, now as a companion to the American flag. In 1959, it most proudly stood as a banner for the newest State of the Union.

** Note from Ken Conklin: immediately following the overthrow of the monarchy on January 17, 1893, the new Provisional Government asked the United States diplomatic representative to order the small number of U.S. military personnel in the islands to serve as a security force to maintain order in the streets as a U.S. protectorate; however, the new U.S. President Grover Cleveland demanded the Provisional Government to restore the ex-queen to the throne; and removed the protectorate after Hawai'i President Sanford B. Dole refused. The nation of Hawai'i remained an independent nation until annexation in 1898, and its flag remained the Hawaiian flag. So, Akaka is lying twice -- first the lie about the cut-up flag; and then the lie about the Hawaiian flag not flying again until 1898. Senator Akaka can't even tell the lie correctly -- the usual telling of the lie places the shredded flag event at annexation in 1898, not the overthrow of 1893. **

Mr. President, a special ceremony honoring Hawaii's historic flag will take place today at Pu'ukohola Heiau National Historic Site, a heiau which was built by Kamehameha I, at Kawaihae on the Island of Hawaii . I wish to point out that Pu'ukohola Heiau is, by law, one of only three designated sites where the Hawaiian flag may fly independently of any other national or State banner. The other locations are the 'Iolani Palace and Mauna'ala Royal Mausoleum in Nuuanu, Oahu.

The Hawaiian flag flies smartly today, much as it has for many decades and much as it will for many more, as a guardian and witness to the fascinating history of a people and a land called Hawaii .

================

THE SENATE OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I IN 2001 UNANIMOUSLY PASSED A RESOLUTION AUTHORED BY POKA LAENUI CALLING UPON THE UNITED NATIONS TO INVESTIGATE THE ILLEGALITY OF THE STATEHOOD VOTE OF 1959 AND IMPLYING THAT THE UNITED NATIONS SHOULD SUPERVISE A PLEBISCITE OFFERING THE OPTION OF INDEPENDENCE. THE COMMITTEE REPORTS ACCOMPANYING THE RESOLUTION ARE EVEN MORE EXPLICIT IN SUPPORTING INDEPENDENCE (THE HAWAI'I LEGISLATURE ALSO UNANIMOUSLY PASSED A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE AKAKA BILL)

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2001/bills/sr98_.htm

SR98

Report Title:

Native Hawaiian Sovereignty; Urging Federal Action and Support

THE SENATE

S.R. NO.

98

TWENTY-FIRST LEGISLATURE, 2001

STATE OF HAWAII

SENATE RESOLUTION

requesting the united states government and the united nations to review the actions taken in 1959 relevant to hawaii's statehood.

WHEREAS, over the last three decades, the Hawaii society, and especially the Native Hawaiian population within that broader society, has had the opportunity to engage in a process of recovery and rediscovery - recovery of the arts, crafts, cultural expressions and language of Hawai`i past, and rediscovery of the historical events which have brought Hawai`i to its present political, social, and economic condition; and

WHEREAS, the process of recovery and rediscovery has brought about much mourning amongst the Native Hawaiian people, the descendants of Hawaiian nationals of the Kingdom of Hawai`i, and others who also share today the Hawaiian archipelago as their home; and

WHEREAS, in the aftermath of the process of recovery and rediscovery and of mourning, from many fronts within the Hawai`i society, people have engaged in dreaming of a just and secure Hawai`i society, addressing both possibilities of remaining within or stepping without the United States of America; and

WHEREAS, in 1991, the Hawai`i State Legislature, by Concurrent Resolution, encouraged the continued discussion and debate over the subject of Hawaii's future, both within or without the United States of America, forming the first of three legislatively construed entities, the Sovereignty Advisory Commission (SAC); and

WHEREAS, in 1993, the Hawai`i State Legislature, following the report of SAC, formed the Hawaiian Sovereignty Advisory Council (HSAC) which continued the investigation of Hawaii's history and conducted mass consultation with the native Hawaiian people on the future steps to be taken on the subject of Hawaiian sovereignty; and

WHEREAS, on November 23, 1993, the United States Congress adopted and the President of the United States signed Public Law 103-150 thereby confessing to a list of events violating the rights of self-determination to the Hawaiian Kingdom and apologized to the Native Hawaiian People for the complicity of the United States in such events which resulted in the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom; and

WHEREAS, in 1993, the Hawai`i State Legislature enacted Act 354, Session Laws of Hawai`i 1993, acknowledging that the actions of the United States were illegal and immoral, and pledged its continued support to the native Hawaiian community by appropriating funds for the development of programs and curriculum to educate the general public about Hawaiian sovereignty through a purchase of service contract with Hui Na'auao; and

WHEREAS, throughout these developments, it has become more and more apparent that the events which brought Hawai`i into union with the States of the United States were of questionable legality and morality; and

WHEREAS, during these three decades, it is now made clear that the standards of international law and the obligations of the United States under the Charter of the United Nations had not been fully complied with in that the process of self-determination leading up to a choice for the people's future form of governance were not met in Hawai`i at the time the 1959 vote on Statehood was taken; and

WHEREAS, in 1959, when the Statehood Vote was put to the people of Hawai`i, the choices given to the people did not include choices for independence from or free association with the United States of America, but only the option of integration with the United States, in the form of a State of the Union, or as a territory of the United States; and

WHEREAS, when the United States Congress acted upon the vote bringing Hawai`i into the Union of States, a serious question was raised as to whether or not that act was consistent with the fulfillment of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of the people who were governed under a system of non-self governing territories pursuant to General Assembly Resolution 66 of the United Nations; now, therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED by the Senate of the Twenty-First Legislature of the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of 2001, that the Senate calls upon the United States government and the United Nations, as parties to the Charter of the United Nations, to:

(1) Review the actions taken in 1959 relevant to Hawaii's Statehood within the Union of the United States of America, the fact that, in affording the people the opportunity for self-governance, no choices were given for independence or free association, but only for integration within the United States of America; and

(2) Consider the implications for the continuing right of self-determination for the Native Hawaiian people and for the people of Hawai`i, as both a matter of domestic law and international law;

and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that certified copies of this Resolution be transmitted to the President of the United States, the Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of the United States Congress, the Secretary General of the United Nations, and the United Nations' Special Committee on the situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.

Your Committee on Hawaiian Affairs, to which was referred S.R. No. 98 entitled:

"SENATE RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AND THE UNITED NATIONS TO REVIEW THE ACTIONS TAKEN IN 1959 RELEVANT TO HAWAII'S STATEHOOD,"

begs leave to report as follows:

The purpose of this measure is to request that the United States government and the United Nations, as parties to the Charter of the United Nations:

(1) Review the actions taken in 1959 relevant to Hawaii's Statehood within the Union of the United States of America, the fact that, in affording the people the opportunity for self-governance, no choices were given for independence or free association, but only for integration within the United States of America; and

(2) Consider the implications for the continuing right of self-determination for the Native Hawaiian people and for the people of Hawaii, as both a matter of domestic law and international law.

Testimony in support of the measure was received from twelve private citizens. The Hawaiian Political Action Committee of Hawaii testified in opposition to the measure.

Your Committee finds that on November 23, 1993, the United States Congress adopted and the President of the United States signed Public Law 103-150, thereby confessing to a list of events violating the rights of self-determination to the Hawaiian Kingdom and apologizing to the Native Hawaiian People for the complicity of the United States in such events which resulted in the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

Also in 1993, the Legislature enacted Act 354, Session Laws of Hawaii 1993, acknowledging the actions of the United States were illegal and immoral, and pledging its continued support to the native Hawaiian community by appropriating funds for the development of programs and curriculum to educate the general public about Hawaiian sovereignty through a purchase of service contract with Hui Na'auao.

Partly through this educational process, it has become more and more apparent that the events that brought Hawaii into union with the United States were of questionable legality and morality. It has also been made clear that the standards of international law and the obligations of the United States under the Charter of the United Nations had not been fully complied with at the time the 1959 vote on Hawaii's statehood was taken.

In 1959, when the Statehood Vote was put to the people of Hawaii, the choices given to the people did not include choices for independence from or free association with the United States of America. The only option provided was to accept or reject integration into the United States, in the form of a State of the Union, or as a territory of the United States.

When the United States Congress acted upon Hawaii's election to become part of the United States, a serious question was raised as to whether or not that act was consistent with the fulfillment of the human rights and fundamental freedoms pursuant to General Assembly Resolution 66 of the United Nations.

Your Committee believes that these fundamental questions should be answered if the process of self-determination for the Native Hawaiian people is to move forward in a cogent manner.

As affirmed by the record of votes of the members of your Committee on Hawaiian Affairs that is attached to this report, your Committee concurs with the intent and purpose of S.R. No. 98 and recommends that it be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

Respectfully submitted on behalf of the members of the Committee on Hawaiian Affairs,

Your Committee on Judiciary, to which was referred S.R. No. 98 entitled:

"SENATE RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AND THE UNITED NATIONS TO REVIEW THE ACTIONS TAKEN IN 1959 RELEVANT TO HAWAII'S STATEHOOD,"

begs leave to report as follows:

The purpose of this measure is to request that the United States government and the United Nations, as parties to the Charter of the United Nations:

(1) Review the actions taken in 1959 relevant to Hawaii's Statehood within the Union of the United States of America, the fact that, in affording the people the opportunity for self-governance, no choices were given for independence or free association, but only for integration within the United States of America; and

(2) Consider the implications for the continuing right of self-determination for the Native Hawaiian people and for the people of Hawaii, as both a matter of domestic law and international law.

The Committee on Hawaiian Affairs received testimony in support of this measure from twelve private citizens. The Hawaiian Political Action Committee of Hawaii testified in opposition to the measure.

On November 23, 1993, the United States Congress adopted and the President of the United States signed Public Law 103-150, delineating and describing the events violating the rights of self-determination to the Hawaiian Kingdom and apologizing to the Native Hawaiian People for the complicity of the United States in such events which resulted in the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

In 1993, the Legislature enacted Act 354, Session Laws of Hawaii (SLH) 1993, acknowledging the actions of the United States were illegal and immoral, and pledging its continued support to the native Hawaiian community by appropriating funds for the development of programs and curriculum to educate the general public about Hawaiian sovereignty through a purchase of service contract with Hui Na'auao.

The combination of Public Law 103-150 and Act 354, SLH 1993, strongly infers that the:

(1) Events that brought Hawaii into union with the United States were of questionable legality and morality; and

(2) Standards of international law and the obligations of the United States under the Charter of the United Nations had not been fully complied with at the time the 1959 vote on Hawaii's statehood was taken.

In 1959, when the Statehood Vote was put to the people of Hawaii to make a choice, the choices did not include independence from or free association with the United States of America. The only option provided was to accept or reject integration into the United States, in the form of a State of the Union, or as a territory of the United States.

Another issue is whether or not the United States Congress acted to fulfill the human rights and fundamental freedoms pursuant to General Assembly Resolution 66 of the United Nations.

Your Committee agrees with the Committee on Hawaiian Affairs that these fundamental questions should be answered if the process of self-determination for the Native Hawaiian people is to move forward in a cogent manner.

As affirmed by the record of votes of the members of your Committee on Judiciary that is attached to this report, your Committee concurs with the intent and purpose of S.R. No. 98 and recommends its adoption.

Respectfully submitted on behalf of the members of the Committee on Judiciary,

____________________________

BRIAN KANNO, Chair

** Note: The secessionist sentiment in Hawai'i remains active in 2005. On our nation's most patriotic holiday, July 4, the grouping of several newspaper letters, and an editorial, lead readers to compare the American desire for independence from a tyrannical British colonial occupation, with the (alleged) desire of ethnic Hawaiians for independence from a tyrannical ongoing American occupation of Hawai'i. See: "4th of July in Hawai'i 2005 -- Patriotism or What? (secessionist thrust of newspaper letters and editorials)" at
http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles3/july4th2005.html

=================

THE APOLOGY RESOLUTION OF 1993 WAS CORRECTLY DESCRIBED ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE IN 1993 AS A BASIS OR JUSTIFICATION FOR RACE-BASED GROUP RIGHTS, RACE-BASED COMMUNAL LAND TENURE, REPARATIONS, AND TOTAL SECESSION. SENATOR INOUYE, SUPPORTING THE APOLOGY RESOLUTION, SAID AT THE TIME THAT IT WOULD NEVER BE USED IN SUCH A WAY; THAT IT WAS A SIMPLE APOLOGY. BUT INDEED THE APOLOGY RESOLUTION HAS BEEN USED IN ALL THOSE WAYS, AND IS NOW A MAJOR ELEMENT IN THE AKAKA BILL CITED AS JUSTIFICATION FOR FEDERAL RECOGNITION OF ETHNIC HAWAIIANS.

The apology resolution of 1993, also known as PL103-150, was passed by both chambers of the U.S. Congress and signed by President Clinton. The resolution commemorates the centennial of the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy on January 17, 1893. It places the United States on record as apologizing to ethnic Hawaiians for the U.S. role in that event.

The Nation of Hawai'i is (as might be expected from its name) a leading advocate for Hawaiian independence. The apology resolution is extremely important to this group, because they see it as the confession of a crime under international law; and the only real remedy for that crime would be for the U.S. to restore the independence of Hawai'i. The website of the Nation of Hawai'i has the full text of the apology resolution at
http://www.hawaii-nation.org/publawall.html

The apology resolution of 1993 continues to be a major source of fuel for the fires of secession even 12 years later in 2005, as shown by the following photos. August 6, 2005, a rally by about 15,000 ethnic Hawaiians protested a decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that Kamehameha Schools' racially exclusionary admissions policy is illegal. Ethnic Hawaiians, and also the entire political establishment of Hawai'i, want to continue the policy of racial segregation. Here are Hawaiian independence activists' signs citing the apology resolution passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1993; P.L.103-150. The signs proclaim that the apology resolution places the U.S. on record as acknowledging that ethnic Hawaiians never gave up their inherent sovereignty or their national lands. Photos taken by a friend of Ken Conklin who prefers not to be named.

The website for the Nation of Hawai'i has the full text of the debate on the floor of the U.S. Senate regarding the apology resolution. That debate had several highlights. Senator Slade Gorton of the State of Washington took note of the racial slaughter then underway in Bosnia involved the genocide of Serbs, Croats, and Muslims who had been living peacefully side by side (as the races in Hawai'i do today) but whose passions became inflamed over the rekindling of historical grievances based on atrocities committed 600 years previously; and the apology resolution lays a basis for stirring up similar passions in Hawai'i based on events of 100 years ago. Senator Gorton also correctly observed that the logical consequence of passing the apology resolution would be the restoration of an independent nation of Hawai'i and thus the secession of Hawai'i from the United States. Senator Inouye assured Senator Gorton and the other Senators that this is a simple apology, and that secession is totally out of the picture. Inouye also assured his colleagues that the apology resolution would not be used to support demands for reparations or for special race-based benefit programs. But as we all know, the apology resolution has been used aggressively ever since 1993 for both purposes -- to assert demands for independence and to assert demands for race-based programs as reparations for the overthrow. Independence activists loudly proclaim that the apology resolution is a "statement against interest" -- it is a confession of a crime under international law. They say the remedy for that crime is to restore independent nationhood. The Akaka bill places heavy reliance on the apology resolution. Senator Brown (R,CO) correctly noted in 1993 that the apology resolution seems to apologize for replacing the system of communal land tenure with the system of private property ownership; but Senator Inouye assured him there was no such intention. Yet we now see growing development of communal land tenure on the leased lots of the Hawaiian Homelands where no home"owner" can ever own the land under his home, and the anticipation that if the Akaka bill passes there will be many hundreds of thousands of additional acres of land given to the Akaka tribe to be held communally. Readers not familiar with the "ceded lands" issue should read a large webpage on that topic at:
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/cededlands.html

The use of the apology resolution as a basis for demanding group rights to race-based government handouts is demonstrated, for example, by the report of a forum sponsored by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (see the USCCR section next after this section on this webpage).

Here are some important (lengthy!) excerpts from that debate, displaying the points made by Senators Gorton and Brown and the way Senator Inouye falsely claimed there would be no demands for secession or for special racial group rights or communal land tenure based on the resolution. Senator Inouye also hoodwinked his colleagues with a totally false historical claim regarding the alleged shredding of a Hawaiian flag whose pieces were allegedly handed out to the coup plotters as souvenirs of the overthrow.

A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 19) to acknowledge the 100th anniversary of the January 17, 1893, overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii and to offer an apology to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii.

Mr. AKAKA.

Few Americans appreciate that for nearly 70 years, between 1826 and 1893, the United States recognized the independence of the Kingdom of Hawaii, extended full and complete diplomatic recognition to the Hawaiian Government, and entered into treaties and conventions with the Hawaiian monarchs to govern commerce and navigation.

Americans do not understand that without the active support and intervention by U.S. diplomatic and military representatives, the overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani on January 17, 1893, would have failed for lack of popular support and insufficient arms.

Finally, few Americans know that in a message to Congress on December 18, 1893, President Grover Cleveland described the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii as "an act of war committed with the participation of a diplomatic representative of the United States without the authority of Congress," and he acknowledged that by such acts, the government of a peaceful and friendly people was overthrown.

No official apology has ever been made to native Hawaiians, nor has there ever been an attempt at a Federal policy addressing their rights.

The deprivation of Hawaiian sovereignty, which began a century ago, has had devastating effects on the health, culture, and social conditions of native Hawaiians, with consequences that are evident throughout the islands today.

My resolution simply seeks to reconcile the growing alienation by native Hawaiians toward the United States, which stems from a century of this Nation's neglect of their plight.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, in the summer of 1989, this Senator, with a number of his colleagues, attended a conference on the future of Eastern Europe, which took place in Dubrovnik, Yugoslavia, in either the last or the next-to-the-last summer during which that then multi-ethnic community was at peace with itself.

The most striking impression that this Senator has of the message that we received from at least those Yugoslavs of Serbian dissent was that that summer marked the 600th anniversary of the Battle of Kossovo, a battle in which Turkish Moslems slaughtered the Serbian Christian army and ended the independence of Serbia for the better part of half a millennium. I remarked at the time that it seemed to me that that battle was more green and vivid in the minds of many Serbs than events which had taken place every bit as tragically during the course of their own lifetime.

A short 2 years later and continuing today, many of those Serbs are in the process of killing Bosnian Moslems in significant measure to revenge their loss at Kossovo in 1389.

That combination of ethnic politics and claims to particular pieces of land is literally lethal across stretches of Eastern Europe, throughout much of Africa, and in many nations in Asia.

It is an evil which we as Americans have largely avoided. And with all of the respect that I can possibly muster for my two friends and colleagues from Hawaii and for all of the evident goodwill in the world which they show, this resolution is a signpost pointing toward that dark and bitter road.

The operative language of this resolution -- not about the State's history which seems to this Senator to be largely accurate -- but the operative language of this resolution apologizes to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the people of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii more than a century ago, and expresses our commitment to acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow of that kingdom in order to provide a proper foundation for reconciliation.

What those ramifications are is mentioned nowhere in the course of the resolution or in the modest committee report on that resolution.

But it is clear that the resolution accomplishes one goal. It divides the citizens of the State of Hawaii who are of course citizens of the United States into two distinct groups, Native Hawaiians and all other citizens.

I may say, Mr. President, that Native Hawaiians are defined as any individual who is the descendent of any person, any aboriginal people who prior to 1778 lived in or occupied what is now the State of Hawaii. That is to say in some cases people with 1/16th or 1/32d blood of Native Hawaiians.

It does so in what seems to this Senator, and I suspect it seems to both Senators from Hawaii, to be the single multiethnic community in the entire world in which a multitude of people from many ethnic backgrounds, perhaps a majority of them from mixed ethnic backgrounds, live together in peace and friendship.

In guidebooks about the State of Hawaii, and it is mentioned in our own history, that State is given as an example of how people from different backgrounds can live together happily and peacefully. Yet here we begin that process of division.

At the time of the commemoration of this coup, or this overthrow, last January the Governor of Hawaii caused the flag of the United States to be removed from the capitol for 5 days. I must hasten to add he was denounced by the two Senators from Hawaii for having done so. But it was symbolic of the divisive nature of this kind of proposal.

My distinguished friend, the junior Senator from Hawaii, made no mention in his opening speech of what these ramifications were or of how this reconciliation was to take place. Many members of the Native Hawaiian community in the State however have done exactly that. I will quote from stories from newspapers on the subject. The Los Angeles Times says:

A small minority advocates total independence, in effect the re-creation of the old kingdom, and an even smaller minority has gone on record for total independence coupled with expulsion of many non-natives from the State. A broad middle group wants a nation within a nation -- --

With a form of sovereignty perhaps, a legislative and an executive and a judicial set of bodies coupled with claims for somewhere between 200,000 and 1.4 million acres of public lands owned by the Federal Government and by the State of Hawaii, and I suspect some kind of monetary compensation at some point or another.

Mr. President, these demands for compensation differ profoundly from those offered to Japanese-Americans by this body in a bill of which this Senator believes that he was a sponsor not many years ago. Those reparations were given to individuals who were greatly wronged by their Government, who were deprived of their homes and of their livelihoods solely by reason of their race and ethnic origin, and who were alive to receive reparations granted to them by Members of this body and the other body almost all of whom were alive when that terrible injustice to individuals took place.

This coup took place more than 100 years ago. No one is alive who played any role in it. No one is alive, perhaps there are a couple of centenarians who may have been there when this took place. This is a different time and a different generation.

It goes without saying in this body, it seems to me, that every square inch of the United States of America was acquired in a manner which bears certain similarities to the acquisition by the United States of America of what is now the State of Hawaii.

Certainly this can be precedent for the Government of Mexico reclaiming Texas -- which was seized first in a war of independence and confirmed in a war against Mexico in which many died only about 50 or 60 years before the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. Does this justify some kind of special acknowledgment to citizens of Mexico? The rest of this country was acquired either from its natives or by way of England, France, Spain, or Russia.

In fact, we are no different than any other society in the world today. I doubt that there is a square mile of the world which is occupied by exactly the same people who were the original human beings on the spot. But it is the genius of us as Americans, it seems to me, Mr. President, that this does not count in America. What counts is that we are all citizens, and that we are all equal.

Are these adverse or unhappy consequences? Are these consequences or ramifications of that overthrow which we wish to undo? I know that the two Senators from Hawaii do not agree with the radicals who wish independence as a result, but the logical consequences of this resolution would be independence. That is the only way that the clock can ever truly be turned back.

This Senator intensely regrets the fact that we are in this process creating a division which does not exist. I probably can come up with no better description of both what Hawaii is like and what some thoughtful people think is an appropriate response than to quote a couple of paragraphs from a speech by a former president of the University of Hawaii, Harlan Cleveland. He says, after acknowledging the history that is included in this resolution, and I quote him:

But my judgment is also that diffusion of American democracy and enterprise with Hawaiian culture mixed now by immigration and intermarriage with Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Filipino, and other workways and mindsets has produced one of the worlds most intriguing experiments in the building of a multicultural society.

That is the actual real world consequence of something which took place more than a century ago. President Cleveland goes on to say that sovereignty which is what many of the native Hawaiian groups wished is unlikely to be the answer; that the way in which any individual problem should be dealt with is through education and through quite a different course of action than seems clearly implied from the proposal which we have before us here.

Mr. President, in concluding these remarks, I would like to remind my colleagues of a remarkable part of our early history and of our genius. On the Fourth of July in 1858, while he was in the midst of the campaign -- ultimately unsuccessful -- to be elected to the Senate of the United States, Abraham Lincoln spoke to a throng of his constituents about something which troubled those constituents even then: The distinction between Americans who could trace their descent to the generation which signed the Declaration of Independence and fought for our freedom, and those who were immigrants or the sons or daughters of immigrants.

This is what Abraham Lincoln said on that day, a century and a half ago:

We have, besides these who are descended by blood from our ancestors, those who are not descendants at all of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence or fought to establish it. But when they look through that old Declaration, they find: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal ..." and then they feel that that moral sentiment evidences their relation to those men, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration; and so they are.

That is Abraham Lincoln on the true American heritage, on the American heritage that all are created equal and that all deserve equal treatment -- not a divisive sentiment, but a uniting and inclusive one. That is the genius of the State of Hawaii, whether its inhabitants are native Hawaiians, Japanese, Chinese, or Caucasians from the mainland. And it is, regrettably, that equal heritage which, in the view of this Senator, this resolution significantly undercuts.

Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. President, I want to say to my friend, Senator Gorton, that he obviously has undertaken a thankless job here, but I think a very important one, in making the statement he just made on the floor of the Senate. I say this with all due respect to all Senators, especially the Senators from Hawaii, whom I admire very much.

The great challenge of this country has always been the challenge of attempting to hold together diverse people. The statement over the Presiding Officer's head, carved in the marble of this room: "E Pluribus Unum," from one, many. That is the motto and challenge of the United States of America, to keep us all together.

It is a challenge which is tested constantly. It is tested by bigots and by hateful people; by mean people; by people who like to lord over others and discriminate against other people. For most of our history, that has been the terrible challenge of America, from slavery on. How do we overcome that kind of mean divisiveness?

There is another kind of challenge, I think, to the test of living together, and that is that it is possible to divide not only by being mean, but by making ourselves victims. I think this is something of a national trend, of whatever group, to be treated terribly and to say: Well, we have been victims. And if we have not been victims ourselves, then somebody else has been a victim, some ancestor has been a victim, so please apologize.

So it is possible to keep others off balance and on guard, defensive at all times. Therefore, not only by meanness, but also by making ourselves a nation of victims, it is possible to emphasize what divides us and separates us, rather than what keeps us glued together.

For obvious reasons, I have not been one who has been constantly taking the floor of the Senate citing Scripture, but the words of Isaiah did come to mind as I listened to Senator Gorton. The prophet said:
Comfort, comfort my people, says your God; speak tenderly to Jerusalem and cry to her that her warfare is over, that her inequity is forgiven.

That, to me, is one of the messages that we should be proclaiming, those of us who are in public life -- that warfare and divisions are not things to be emphasized constantly; that the past is not something to be constantly relived with a view toward how to get other people to apologize.

There comes a time to put warfare behind us and divisiveness behind us and to dedicate ourselves to a common purpose, because we are all Americans, and because it is challenging enough to live together in this one country as one people, without constantly fighting the battles of the past.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, before proceeding with my remarks, I will respond to the statement of my distinguished colleague from Washington.

To suggest that this resolution is the first step toward declaring independence for the State of Hawaii is a painful distortion of the intent of the authors. To suggest that this resolution is intended to expel non-Hawaiians from the State of Hawaii is something that even the most severe critics of this resolution in Hawaii would not even consider.

Mr. President, this is a very simple resolution. It was authored by my friend from Hawaii because he loves America. It is because of our love for this Nation that this resolution was presented, to make it possible for all of us, even after 100 years, to cleanse one of our pages, to make it a bit brighter.

Mr. President, a century ago, a company of uniformed U.S. Marines and two companies of U.S. sailors landed on the shores of the Kingdom of Hawaii at the behest of the Minister of the United States of America, Mr. Stevens, and by so doing, assisted a handful of American and European businessmen, the pillars of society, in an illegal overthrow of the kingdom, a kingdom which was then internationally recognized by treaty by the United States, Great Britain, France, and Germany with exchange of Ambassadors.

So I say to my colleagues the measure before us is important. It is appropriate. And it is significant as a first step in that process, as my colleague has so eloquently stated, to bring about some understanding and reconciliation.

Before I close, Mr. President, just a few footnotes in history, and this might give one a better picture of what happened. This so-called revolution that overthrew of our Queen was engineered by 12 men, leaders of the business community, owners of great sugar plantations and shipping companies. They called themselves the Committee of Safety. On that fateful day when the flag of the Kingdom of Hawaii was lowered over Iolani Palace and the American flag went up, it is reported that one of the Committee of Safety remarked to the others: "This is a glorious day. We need something to remind us of this auspicious moment." So someone is reported to have suggested, "Why don't we cut that flag in 12 parts; each of us take a piece, a piece of the action?"
And that is what happened. It is said that one piece remains today, the last remaining piece of the flag of the Kingdom of Hawaii.

*** Note from website editor Ken Conklin: That story is totally false, and Senator Inouye should have known it was false at the time he said it. Here is a webpage devoted to exploring that falsehood: "The myth of the shredded Hawaiian flag -- a false claim that the Hawaiian flag removed from ‘Iolani Palace on annexation day August 12, 1898 was cut up into pieces distributed to the annexationists as souvenirs of their victory over the Hawaiian people":
http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles2/HawnFlagCutUpSouv1898.html
***

I think that would give you an idea of the attitude of the Americans who were residing there at that time. It is not an attitude that we would condone today. We would not raise that attitude with accolades. Why not recognize it for what it was?

And so I say to my colleagues, I think the time has come. One hundred years has been long enough. All we have to say is that we are sorry.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I intend in just a moment to yield to the Senator from Colorado, but I wish to make only one or two preliminary remarks.

Of course, this Senator does not believe that either of his colleagues from Hawaii wish the consequences of this resolution to be the restoration of the independence of Hawaii itself. What this Senator said was that there are some splinter groups in Hawaii who believe that is the only appropriate response to the overthrow and they will clearly use this resolution as the basis on which to make such a demand.

This Senator finds that he has been unable to disagree in most respects with anything that either of the Senators from Hawaii has said about the history which led up to the overthrow and the annexation of Hawaii by the United States.

But this Senator needs to point out that neither Senator from Hawaii has said one word about what the ramifications of the overthrow and the proper foundation for reconciliation is to be. In fact, the senior Senator from Hawaii said it is not to be independent. This Senator believes that, on the record of this debate should be spread the intentions of the two Senators from Hawaii in that respect.

Is this a purely self-executing resolution which has no meaning other than its own passage, or is this, in their minds, some form of claim, some form of different or distinct treatment for those who can trace a single ancestor back to 1778 in Hawaii which is now to be provided for this group of citizens, separating them from other citizens of the State of Hawaii or the United States?

At the very least, before we vote on their resolution, we ought to understand what the two Senators from Hawaii mean those ramifications and consequences to be.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. President.

As I read through the resolution, I have concerns -- concerns because I fear it is not clear as to what it implies or means.
Let me be specific. The apology states:

Apologizes to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the people of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom.

Included in the whereases that precede this is a recitation that at that time it involved communal land tenure.

That, as my friend knows, has been replaced by a concept of private property. Surely, we do not mean to suggest that we apologize for bringing the concept of private property to replace the concept of a communal land tenure system.

The whereases also note a unified monarchical government.

As everyone knows, that has been replaced by a representative democracy. Surely, we do not intend -- and I do not mean to imply that anyone intends that we apologize for having replaced a monarchy or a form of monarchy with a representative democracy.

My guess is, Hawaiians take great pride in our representative democracy, just as every American does.

I notice in the first section, it ends with these words, referring to the "event which resulted in suppression of the inherent sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people."

Mr. President, it seems to me, we ought to be clear that we are not here apologizing for democracy or the concept of private property.

We do indeed and should apologize for a violent, forceful overthrow of the government.

I would like an opportunity to clarify this, which, I think, would meet the intentions of all parties. I ask unanimous consent that we be allowed an additional half hour of debate wherein amendments may be offered to clarify the intent of this resolution.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, reluctantly, on behalf of the leader, I must object, because a schedule has been established for the rest of the afternoon.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, may I once again say that the suggestion that this resolution was the first step toward declaring independence or seceding from the United States is at best a very painful distortion of our intent.

The whereases were placed in the resolution for a very simple reason: So that those who are studying this resolution or those students of history in years to come can look back and say that is the way it was in Hawaii on January 17, 1893.

To suggest that we are attempting to restore the Kingdom, Mr. President, I find it most difficult to find words to even respond to that.

Mr. President, I indicated that we submitted this resolution because of our love for our country. It is that simple. Because we believe that our country is big enough and great enough to recognize wrong and admit it. It is simple.

No, no, this is not seceding or independence. We fought for statehood long enough and we cherish it and we want to stay there. I can assure you, I do not wish to leave this place.

So, Mr. President, I hope that our assurance would suffice. After all, we are the authors of this resolution, and that is not our intention.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I will suggest through the President to either Senator from Hawaii, that this Senator, as he has already said twice, has never had the remotest idea that independence was the meaning of this resolution on the part of the two sponsors. But this Senator will be happy to yield his own time to either Senator from Hawaii if they will tell us what their operative intention is. What are the appropriate consequences of passing this resolution? Are they any form of special status under which persons of Native Hawaiian descent will be given rights or privileges or reparations or land or money communally that are unavailable to other citizens of Hawaii?

Mr. INOUYE. As I tried to convince my colleagues, this is a simple resolution of apology, to recognize the facts as they were 100 years ago. As to the matter of the status of Native Hawaiians, as my colleague from Washington knows, from the time of statehood we have been in this debate. Are Native Hawaiians Native Americans? This resolution has nothing to do with that. This resolution does not touch upon the Hawaiian homelands. I can assure my colleague of that.

It is a simple apology.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this Senator wants to sincerely thank the senior Senator from Hawaii for that answer and accepts it as such. This Senator believes the Senator from Hawaii has said this resolution is unrelated to -- it neither advances nor detracts from -- any kind of special treatment for Native Hawaiians.

In fact, if this Senator believed that this resolution could not be used in that fashion there would have been no such debate here. The Senator does not disagree with the history and would have been happy to restate it. This Senator feels, unfortunately, that the consequences of the portions of this resolution after the whereas clauses do in fact provide a basis -- perhaps even a legal basis -- for some kind of demand for special treatment or for the return of lands. It is for that reason, for that reason which this Senator believes to be very divisive within our society, that the Senator regretfully opposes the resolution, and at this point, Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I simply wanted to make it clear I certainly had not suggested that the resolution implies we wanted the monarchy back. I certainly hope it does not.

What I have said is the resolution is not clear. To apologize or to lament, and then spell out communal land and a monarchy government, in areas that I think can be implied as lamentation, does not represent the feelings of this Senate, does not represent, I believe, the feelings of any Member of the Senate.

What I am hoping is that we would have an opportunity to make that clear because I think the resolution, with the whereases, is not clear. The function, I think, of any legislator is to try to develop common grounds and develop clear language. It strikes me that we do agree as Members that a violent overthrow of that government in an unauthorized way is something we ought to apologize for.

Having that apology, though, linked with the resuscitation of a monarchal government and communal land tenure I think misrepresents what we believe and what we have to apologize for.

It is thus, why I wanted an opportunity to clarify the intent and I am sorry we were not afforded that opportunity.

*** Additional note: The secessionist sentiment in Hawai'i remains active in 2005. On our nation's most patriotic holiday, July 4, the grouping of several newspaper letters, and an editorial, lead readers to compare the American desire for independence from a tyrannical British colonial occupation, with the (alleged) desire of ethnic Hawaiians for independence from a tyrannical ongoing American occupation of Hawai'i. See: "4th of July in Hawai'i 2005 -- Patriotism or What? (secessionist thrust of newspaper letters and editorials)" at
http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles3/july4th2005.html

===================

THE U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS SPONSORED A FORUM IN SEPTEMBER 2000 TO SUPPORT THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF "NATIVE HAWAIIANS" ALLEGEDLY UNDER THREAT FROM THE U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION IN RICE V. CAYETANO. THE PURPOSE OF THE FORUM WAS TO EMBRACE THE APOLOGY RESOLUTION AND TO ENDORSE THE AKAKA BILL AS A WAY TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THE APOLOGY DESPITE THE COURT DECISION. THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE FORUM PUBLISHED BY USCCR CONTAIN SHOCKING LANGUAGE ASSERTING A RIGHT FOR NATIVE HAWAIIANS TO FORCE THE SECESSION OF HAWAI'I FROM THE UNITED STATES AS A MATTER OF CIVIL RIGHTS. THUS THE USCCR IN 2000, AND ITS LOCAL HAWAII ADVISORY COMMITTEE, SUPPORTED THE AKAKA BILL AS A STEP ALONG THE WAY TO THE SECESSION OF HAWAI'I.

IN FEBRUARY 2000 THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HANDED DOWN THE RICE V. CAYETANO DECISION CLEARLY STATING THAT "NATIVE HAWAIIAN" IS A RACIAL DESCRIPTION AND NOT A POLITICAL ENTITY. THAT DECISION SENT SHOCK WAVES THROUGH THE POLITICAL ESTABLISHMENT IN HAWAI'I, BECAUSE OF THE IMPLICATION THAT RACE-BASED GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS FOR "NATIVE HAWAIIANS" WILL BE FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THE AKAKA BILL WAS HURRIEDLY WRITTEN, AND FORMALLY INTRODUCED IN CONGRESS IN JULY 2000. "NATIVE HAWAIIAN" INSTITUTIONS AND HAWAI'I POLITICIANS ASKED THE U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS TO HOLD HEARINGS IN HONOLULU TO JUSTIFY THE NEED FOR GOVERNMENT RACE-BASED HANDOUTS AND TO SUPPORT THE AKAKA BILL TO CONVERT "NATIVE HAWAIIANS" FROM A RACIAL GROUP TO A POLITICAL ENTITY. THE OFFICIAL REPORT OF THOSE HEARINGS IS STARTLING BECAUSE, IN ADDITION TO SUPPORTING THE AKAKA BILL, IT ALSO SUPPORTS THE RIGHT OF NATIVE HAWAIIANS TO FORCE THE SECESSION OF HAWAI'I FROM THE UNITED STATES.

HERE ARE SOME OF THE MOST TROUBLING EXCERPTS FROM THE REPORT, FOLLOWED BY THE FULL CONTEXT OF THOSE EXCERPTS:

"The Hawaii Advisory Committee is fully cognizant of the concern expressed by some that international resolution would necessarily involve secession, a drastic endeavor over which this nation purportedly fought a civil war. However, this view ignores the troubled and racist roots of our nation's history. ... The principle of self-determination necessarily contemplates the potential choice of forms of governance that may not be authorized by existing domestic law.[420] Whether such a structure is politically or legally possible under the law is secondary, however, to the expression of one's desire for self-determination. The important proposition is that those who would choose to swear their allegiance to a restored sovereign Hawaiian entity be given that choice after a full and free debate ... The United States should respect that political maturity and allow for conditions that will give Native Hawaiians the full opportunity to express their desires for self-determination. If necessary, that process should engage respected international observers who could help fashion a unique solution that suits the political needs of Hawaiians. ... The process should allow for international oversight by nonaligned observers of international repute. After a period for organization of that government, the federal government should engage in negotiations with the sovereign Hawaiian entity. The Hawaii Advisory Committee believes that these deliberations should take into consideration and protect, or otherwise accommodate, the rights of non-Native Hawaiians. Thereafter, the federal government should provide financial assistance for the educational effort that may be necessary to reconcile conflicts raised by the choices made by Native Hawaiians. If necessary, the United States should engage in continuing negotiations to seek resolution of any outstanding issues with the sovereign Hawaiian entity."

WOW!!! The U.S. "purportedly fought a civil war" over the issue of secession? Whether an independent Hawai'i "is politically or legally possible under the law is secondary, however, to the expression of one's desire for self-determination"? "The important proposition is that those who would choose to swear their allegiance to a restored sovereign Hawaiian entity be given that choice"? The United Nations should provide oversight to the breakup of America? "these deliberations should take into consideration and protect, or otherwise accommodate, the rights of non-Native Hawaiians." [Even if we cannot protect the rights of American citizens to prevent the breakup of America or the extablishment of an apartheid regime, we should somehow "accommodate" their needs!!!]

Below is the context from which those outrageous excerpts were taken. The context clearly shows that the excerpts did not in any way distort the intent of the commission on "civil rights."

-------------

The Rice v. Cayetano decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in February 2000 was a major bombshell. Although the decision was based only on the 15th Amendment language that "the right to vote shall not be denied or abridged on account of race," the explicit language included in the Court's ruling clearly stated that "Hawaiian" and "Native Hawaiian" are racial categories and not political ones. That raised immediate red flags that all the government programs providing handouts to "Native Hawaiians" are unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment equal protection clause.

Accordingly, Hawai'i politicians and the leaders of the huge institutions dependent on federal and state money for racially exclusionary programs immediately began frantic efforts to rescue such programs. One of those efforts was the Akaka bill. The first version of the Akaka bill to be officially introduced in Congress was introduced in both the House and the Senate on July 20, 2000.

In the meantime, help was urgently requested from the leftist Democrat-dominated U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, to hold community hearings and to develop a report that could be used to bolster the chances of passing the Akaka bill. Part of the urgency was that President Clinton's term was coming to an end and it was feared the next President would be a Republican.

A hearing was organized by the Hawai'i Advisory Committee to the USCCR, headed by Rev. Charles Kauluwehi Maxwell. The hearing was held in Honolulu in September 2000, and included several members of the national USCCR together with the local Hawai'i Advisory Committee. Fortunately, alert members of the public who oppose race-based programs and who oppose the racial separatism of the Akaka bill were successful in demanding the right to present testimony; and some ethnic Hawaiians opposed to the Akaka bill also were able to speak. But of course the hearings were dominated by supporters of the Akaka bill, and the final report issued in 2001 strongly supported the Akaka bill.

The USCCR website includes a page offering information about the hearings, at
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/sac/hi0601/main.htm
which begins this way:

Reconciliation at a Crossroads: The Implications of the Apology Resolution and Rice v. Cayetano for Federal and State Programs Benefiting Native Hawaiians

Summary Report of the August 1998 and September 2000 Community Forums in Honolulu, Hawaii

Hawaii Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
June 2001

It is then possible to click on the link called "Report" and download the very lengthy complete report, at:
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/sac/hi0601/report.htm

"Reconciliation at a Crossroads: The Implications of the Apology Resolution and Rice v. Cayetano for Federal and State Programs Benefiting Native Hawaiians"

Note that the report title clearly identifies the 1993 apology resolution as a primary source of authority, and then focuses on how federal and state government handouts can continue and be strengthened in the face of the Rice v. Cayetano decision.

About halfway down the lengthy report is the section called "Conclusions and Recommendations," followed by a lengthy collection of footnotes that occupy the entire second half of the report.

"Conclusions and Recommendations" [There were 9 of them. The one-sentence summary of each of those 9 has been copied; together with partial text of item # 1 and complete text of item #4, which are of greatest importance for this webpage regarding the convergence of the apology resolution, the independence movement, and the Akaka bill.]

1. The federal government should accelerate efforts to formalize the political relationship between Native Hawaiians and the United States.

This recommendation can be accomplished through the formal and direct recognition by Congress of the United States' responsibilities toward Native Hawaiians, by virtue of the unique political history between the United States and the former Kingdom of Hawaii....[T]he Advisory Committee requests that the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights urge Congress to pass legislation formally recognizing the political status of Native Hawaiians.

2. The federal government should implement the recommendations made by the Department of the Interior and Department of Justice in their October 2000 report on the Reconciliation Process between the Federal Government and Native Hawaiians.

3. Diverse viewpoints among Native Hawaiians should be respected.

4. International solutions should be explored as alternatives to the recognition of a Native Hawaiian governing entity.

The Hawaii Advisory Committee recognizes that the sentiment for an international resolution to restore a sovereign Hawaiian entity is beyond the immediate scope and power of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Nevertheless, that limitation does not preclude the United States from exploring such alternatives as a part of the reconciliation process that the United States committed to pursue in the 1993 Apology Resolution. In order to make this process truly meaningful, the federal government should engage in a dialogue with Hawaiian leaders to examine the issues surrounding as wide a variety of options for reconciliation as possible.

The principles of self-determination and self-governance—which are consistent with the democratic ideals upon which our nation is founded—can only be meaningful if Native Hawaiians have the freedom to examine diverse options for exercising the sovereignty that they have "never directly relinquished."[418] Accordingly, the United States should give due consideration to re-inscribing Hawai‘i on the United Nations' list of non-self-governing territories, among other possibilities. Our nation's experiment in democracy will gain credence (and, therefore, influence) with members of the international community to the extent that we are able to fully embrace the ideal that motivated this country's founding fathers: consent of the governed.

The Hawaii Advisory Committee is fully cognizant of the concern expressed by some that international resolution would necessarily involve secession, a drastic endeavor over which this nation purportedly fought a civil war. However, this view ignores the troubled and racist roots of our nation's history. The Civil War was at its core a conflict over the issue of slavery. Moreover, the Civil War Amendments and Civil Rights Acts, upon which the plaintiff in Rice based his claims, were supposed to effect a reconstruction of American society through equality for African Americans. Tragically, this promise, like the promises made by the United States to its indigenous people, was broken.[419]

The principle of self-determination necessarily contemplates the potential choice of forms of governance that may not be authorized by existing domestic law.[420] Whether such a structure is politically or legally possible under the law is secondary, however, to the expression of one's desire for self-determination. The important proposition is that those who would choose to swear their allegiance to a restored sovereign Hawaiian entity be given that choice after a full and free debate with those who might prefer some form of association with the United States (including, perhaps, the status quo).

In modern history, Hawaiians have demonstrated an enviable capacity for peaceful discourse and nonviolence. The United States should respect that political maturity and allow for conditions that will give Native Hawaiians the full opportunity to express their desires for self-determination. If necessary, that process should engage respected international observers who could help fashion a unique solution that suits the political needs of Hawaiians.

Those supervising the reconciliation process should provide for an open, free, and democratic plebiscite on all potential options by which Native Hawaiians might express their inherent right to self-determination. The process should allow for international oversight by nonaligned observers of international repute. After a period for organization of that government, the federal government should engage in negotiations with the sovereign Hawaiian entity. The Hawaii Advisory Committee believes that these deliberations should take into consideration and protect, or otherwise accommodate, the rights of non-Native Hawaiians. Thereafter, the federal government should provide financial assistance for the educational effort that may be necessary to reconcile conflicts raised by the choices made by Native Hawaiians. If necessary, the United States should engage in continuing negotiations to seek resolution of any outstanding issues with the sovereign Hawaiian entity.

5. Administrative rules and policies to support the principles of self-determination should be adopted pending formal recognition of a sovereign Hawaiian entity.

6. Regular evaluations should be conducted of federal and state programs for the benefit of Native Hawaiians.

7. Enforcement of the federal and state governments' trust responsibilities to Native Hawaiians should be enhanced.

8. State and federal funding should be increased.

9. Context-sensitive planning should be required with respect to all governmental, judicial, or legislative actions affecting Native Hawaiians.

===================

THE OHA WEBSITE INCLUDES TOTAL INDEPENDENCE AS ONE OF THE SOVEREIGNTY OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO ETHNIC HAWAIIANS AS A RESULT OF PASSING THE AKAKA BILL. OHA ADMINISTRATOR CLYDE NAMU'O HAS ASSURED INDEPENDENCE ACTIVISTS THAT THE AKAKA BILL COULD BE A STEP TOWARD INDEPENDENCE. OHA PAID TRAVEL EXPENSES AND HONORARIUM FOR RADICAL ANTI-AMERICAN FRANCIS BOYLE, PROFESSOR OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS, TO COME TO HAWAI'I IN DECEMBER 2004 FOR A SERIES OF LECTURES IN SUPPORT OF HAWAIIAN INDEPENDENCE.

State Agency Looks at Possible Independent Government for Native Hawaiians

From the Frequently Asked Questions on Hawaiian Governance
Office of Hawaiian Affairs Web Site

This is reprinted from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs Web site, which is a public agency set up in 1978 to "serve" the native Hawaiian community. In this Q & A, the agency highlights the fact that native Hawaiians are looking at the formation of their own government, and give several options for what that government could be like.

Why should Native Hawaiians consider the formation of a new self-governing body?

To provide for a better future and to secure their rights Native Hawaiians must consider a new relationship with the U.S. government.

This effort to establish a new government is founded on three basic principles: 1) that the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii was an illegal act under U.S. and International Law; 2) that both the U.S. government and the state of Hawaii have failed to care for Native Hawaiian people, falling far short of their responsibiltiy to preserve and protect Native Hawaiian rights, lands, assets and culture; and 3) that Native Hawaiians maintain their inherent right to self-government, a right which they have never relinquished.

What form of government will be established?

The ultimate form of government -- be it total independence, nation-within-a-nation or free association -- must be decided upon and ratified by the Native Hawaiian people.

What’s the difference between independence, nation-within-a-nation, and free association?

Independence: This model would mean complete legal and territorial separation from the United States and the re-establishment of the Hawaiian nation-state.

Nation-Within-A-Nation: This model would mean nationhood within the legal and territorial limits of the United States. This would amount to a self-governing status similar to American Indian and Alaska Native governments.

Free Association: this model would mean nationhood with marginal connections to the legal and territorial limits of the United States. This would amount to a self-governing status similar to other islands in the Pacific like the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia and their relationship with the United States. This would allow the Native Hawaiian nation to remain self-governing and fully responsible for internal affairs. The United States would retain responsibilty for some support and defense. However, these responsibilities would confer no rights of control and would only be exercised at the request of the Native Hawaiian government.

How does this relate to the current efforts for Federal Recognition?

Currently, there is proposed legislation before Congress that seeks to affirm the indigenous status of Native Hawaiians and their special political and legal relationship with the United States. The proposed bill would create a process for the United States to recognize a Native Hawaiian governing entity as a "nation-within-a-nation," similar to the current status of American Indian and Alaska Native governments. While OHA has expressed its support for the intent of this proposed legislation, efforts to discuss, develop, and reorganize a new Native Hawaiian nation will be conducted outside this framework. It will be entirely up to the Native Hawaiian people to decided what form of government is established, not OHA or the proponents of this proposed legislation.

What is the difference between Self-Determination and Sovereignty?

Self-Determination: 1) The freedom to live as one chooses, or to act or decide without consulting others; and 2) The freedom of a people to determine the way in which they shall be governed and whether or not they shall be self-governed.

Sovereignty: 1) The quality or state of being sovereign; 2) The status, dominion, power, or authority of a sovereign; royalty; 3) Supreme and independent power or authority in a state; 4) rightful status, independence, or prerogative; and 5) A sovereign state, community, or political unit. (Source: Webster’s Dictionary) Under current U.S. law, there are only five entities that maintain some form of sovereignty; the federal government, state governments, tribal governments, territorial governments, and nations in free association with the United States. However, state, tribal, and territorial governmental sovereignty is limited under the ultimate sovereign authority of the federal government and the U.S. Constitution.

How will the formation of a Native Hawaiian government affect non-Natives?

The relationship between non-Hawaiians and the Native Hawaiian governing entity remains unclear. However, this effort in and of itself does not adversely affect or impact the rights of non-Hawaiians.

What happens after a roll of eligible Native Hawaiians is established?

Once the roll is establish, the Hawaiian community can then effectively assess its voting population and begin the effort to formally gather, develop governing documents, and elect representatives and officials for a Native Hawaiian governing body.

About 20 members of the "Hui Pu," or gathering, of Native Hawaiian groups that oppose the Akaka bill on a number of grounds, showed up yesterday at OHA's regularly scheduled meeting in Honolulu, demanding that OHA spend money to explain the positions of those against the controversial measure. ... OHA administrator Clyde Namu'o said trustees' support of the Akaka bill does not mean opposition to independence from the United States, which many of the Hui Pu groups want. Namu'o said many of those in the independence movement are concerned that once federal recognition is achieved, a drive for independence may be diminished. "But that remains to be seen," Namu'o said. "If, truly, the Hawaiian community feels independence is the noblest of goals, regardless of whether federal recognition comes about, it could still be pursued." Namu'o noted that OHA has given some support to the independence movement, including sponsoring a visit from a noted scholar...

----------------------

Professor Boyle does the politically correct thing by saying he is merely an attorney from elsewhere who wants to explain international law and help ethnic Hawaiians make their own decision in the exercise of self-determination. But Boyle makes clear that he favors total independence and therefore opposes the Akaka bill.

Despite his opposition to the Akaka bill, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs paid for Professor Boyle's visit to Hawai'i. OHA did that partly because the independence activists were threatening to take legal action against OHA if OHA continues spending millions of dollars to lobby in favor of the Akaka bill while totally ignoring the views of a large segment of its "beneficiaries." But OHA's sponsorship of the Boyle lectures is also a genuine outreach to the independence activists, letting them know that OHA supports eventual independence for Hawai'i. In some ways, the article by Poka Laenui in the OHA newspaper of April 2005 (see earlier section on this webpage) can be regarded as OHA's reply to Professor Boyle. Poka is a long-time leader of the independence movement who favors the Akaka bill, saying it will protect the flow of federal dollars to ethnic Hawaiians without in any way interfering with the long-term goal of total independence.

Here is the announcement of Professor Boyle's visit of December 2004, taken from the Nation of Hawai'i website bulletin board where it was Message number 696:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hawaii-nation/message/696

The Office of Hawaiian Affairs & The Nation of Hawai'i

is proud to present the return of International Law Professor Francis Anthony Boyle

For Prof. Boyle's 1993 address regarding the Apology bill and its implications for the restoration of the independent nation state of Hawai`i under international law, see:
http://hawaii-nation.org/boyleall.html

"The cause of Hawaii and independence is larger and dearer than
the life of any man connected with it. Love of country is deep-
seated in the breast of every Hawaiian, whatever his station."
- Queen Lili`uokalani

---------------------------

A transcript and also an audio recording of Professor Boyle's speech in Honolulu, December 28, 2004 are available on the Nation of Hawai'i website.

International law expert Francis Boyle walked hastily into Kona Outdoor Circle Wednesday morning. He was late by almost 30 minutes, but it didn't matter.
About 60 people waited patiently in their seats to hear his three-hour speech, "The Restoration of Hawaii's Independence." Most favored the perspective of Nation of Hawaii and Hui Aloha Aina -- Na Wahine O Puna sponsors -- "He just makes sense."

Boyle said the United States conceded it unlawfully occupied the Kingdom of Hawaii and has done so for more than 111 years. That fact alone, he added, "gives the Kanaka Maoli (Native Hawaiians) the entitlement to restore their independent status as a sovereign nation state."

To do this, Boyle urged the people to make an "educated" choice on whether they wanted to approve the Akaka Bill, which seeks federal recognition for Native Hawaiians.

A man in a blue baseball cap stood up and asked Boyle if the Akaka Bill should be shot, chopped or passed.
"I'm just a lawyer," Boyle responded. "I just provide advice, counsel and representation. You have to decide."
The audience waited for the man's decision.
"I already told them to chop it," the man said, slicing through the air with his right hand.

The bill's proponents said it allows for self-determination in government. Boyle disagreed, warning the audience to pay attention to the bill's "carefully chosen" phrases.

In the beginning, he said, the bill promises "a governing entity," not a government. Boyle, who served as counsel for the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Provision Government of the State of Palestine, defined entity as it was used in the negotiations between Israel and Palestine. "They offered entity to demonstrate utmost disrespect," he said. "It was the very bottom level of respect to use 'government' as an adjective."

Boyle rhetorically asked if Native Hawaiians needed legislation, permission or approval from the U.S. government to be a self-governance.

Under the U.N. Charter, Article 73, Boyle said the United States is "obligated to bring about self-government of people within territories deemed non-self governing." Hawaii was once designated as a territory, but was removed from the U.N. list of Non-self Governing Peoples, after becoming a U.S. state in 1959.

Boyle then mentioned the Palestinians, who in 1988 decided on their own to "unilaterally proclaim their own state, in a declaration of independence. This eventually led to the Palestinian state being recognized today by 125 nation states in the world."

He said Native Hawaiians, like the Palestinians, are striving for "their right of self-determination," which is afforded to them by the U.N. Charter, Article 1. It states, "The purpose of the United Nations is to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace."

Boyle further suggested the audience "exercise their right of self-determination," instead of asking the permission of the U.S. Congress to declare their independence.

To create an independent state, territory, population, government and international relations must exist.
Hawaii already has a fixed territory -- the Hawaiian Archipelago -- and a population of distinguishable people -- the Native Hawaiians, who trace their ancestry back before the Europeans' appearance on the lands.

Government, Boyle said, is in the kupuna council, but how the people are governed has yet to be organized. He added, "You don't need a government along the lines of a federal government of the United States or the State of Hawaii to have a government."

Boyle said Hawaii also need the capacity to "enter into international relations, to deal with other states, and to keep your commitments," which meant establishing diplomatic relations as an independent state.

He did not know how long this creation would take, what the consequences would be or how many states would recognize Hawaii. However, Boyle said "the plight of the Hawaiian people is generally well known in the world and there's a great deal of sympathy."

He ended his speech, saying "Hawaii should send the strongest message to Washington it can. Letters carry no weight. The number of people in the street do. Ghandi threw the mighty British out of India with peaceful, nonviolent force. People power, submit to it."

-----------------

PROFESSOR BOYLE HAS HAD MANY INTERACTIONS WITH HAWAIIAN INDEPENDENCE RADICALS THROUGHOUT THE YEARS FROM 1993 UNTIL NOW. HERE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS HE HAS DONE TO HELP THEM; ALL OF WHICH ARE KNOWN (OR SHOULD BE KNOWN) TO THE ADMINISTRATOR AND TRUSTEES OF THE OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS.

The Apology resolution was passed by the Senate on October 27, 1993, and by the House on November 15, 1993. It was signed by President Clinton on November 23, 1993.

Professor Boyle and the independence activists could hardly wait to celebrate. On December 28, 1993 Professor Boyle flew in from Illinois and gave a speech at the large Mabel Smyth Hall in Honolulu, entitled: "Interpretation of U.S. Public Law 103-150 under International Law, and its Implications for the Restoration of the Independent and Sovereign Nation State of Hawai'i" His expenses were paid for by a "sovereignty commission" established and funded by the State of Hawai'i Legislature. The excerpts of Professor Boyle's speech considered most important by the Nation of Hawai'i are collected on the Nation's website at
http://www.hawaii-nation.org/boylesum.html
and the full text of his speech is at:
http://www.hawaii-nation.org/boyleall.html

Here are a few of the things he said: The United States of America is "...admitting that the invasion, overthrow, occupation, annexation, starting in 1893, on up, violated all the treaties, violated basic norms of international law, and the United States Constitution... the overthrow of a lawful government... Under international law when you have a violation of treaties of this magnitude, the World Court has ruled that the only appropriate remedy is restitution ... now the United States government, after one hundred years, has finally and officially conceded, as a matter of United States law, that Native Hawaiian people have the right to restore the Independent Nation State that you had in 1893 when the United States government came and destroyed it. ... Congress is effectively conceding now that the (1959 statehood) vote is meaningless, as a matter of international law and United States domestic law. So you're not bound by it. Rather I'm suggesting you're now free to determine your own fate pursuant to the principal of self-determination. ... these are official findings of fact and law, by the Congress of the United States. These findings bind all state and federal courts here in Hawai`i. As a litigator before the International Court of Justice, I would be able to take this law to the World Court, and say, 'The United States government has now officially conceded that it illegally invaded and occupied the Kingdom of Hawai'i, and for this reason the native people of Hawai'i would be entitled to a restoration of their independent status as a sovereign nation state.'"

Professor Boyle then wrote a Constitution for the Nation of Hawai'i which was proclaimed in January, 1995 by head of that "nation", convicted felon Dennis (Bumpy) Kanahele. The Constitution can be seen at:
http://www.hawaii-nation.org/constitution.html
Boyle claims this Constitution is acceptable under "international law" even though it is racial supremacist -- it requires that the head of government must be racially Hawaiian; there must be a majority of racial Hawaiians in the Legislature; all the judges must be racially Hawaiian; and the members of the three important Councils must be racially Hawaiian (Kupuna Council [of elders], Makua Council [of parents], 'Opio Council [of youth]).

On November 17, 1997 (the 104th anniversary of the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy), Professor Boyle filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the United State Supreme Court. The document was filed by Boyle in his capacity as attorney for David Keanu Sai, convicted felon and self-proclaimed Regent Pro-Tem of the Kingdom of Hawai'i. That document was filed directly in the Supreme Court under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution giving the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to hear complaints against the United States by ambassadors of foreign governments. The document demanded U.S. withdrawal from its belligerent military occupation of the (still-living) Kingdom of Hawai'i, and payment of reparations for more than a century of illegal occupation. The document can be seen at:
http://www.hawaii-nation.org/mandamus.html
A newspaper article describing the seriousness of the situation is at:
http://www.hawaii-nation.org/mandamus-proceeds.html

Far from repudiating Professor Boyle or disavowing his encouragement of independence, the OHA head administrator on July 7, 2005, only a few months after Professor Boyle's latest speech in Honolulu paid for by OHA, reassured independence activists that the Akaka bill does not in any way interfere with their continuing to seek independence"

"About 20 members of the "Hui Pu," or gathering, of Native Hawaiian groups that oppose the Akaka bill on a number of grounds, showed up yesterday at OHA's regularly scheduled meeting in Honolulu, demanding that OHA spend money to explain the positions of those against the controversial measure. ... OHA administrator Clyde Namu'o said trustees' support of the Akaka bill does not mean opposition to independence from the United States, which many of the Hui Pu groups want. Namu'o said many of those in the independence movement are concerned that once federal recognition is achieved, a drive for independence may be diminished. "But that remains to be seen," Namu'o said. "If, truly, the Hawaiian community feels independence is the noblest of goals, regardless of whether federal recognition comes about, it could still be pursued." Namu'o noted that OHA has given some support to the independence movement, including sponsoring a visit from a noted scholar... [Francis Boyle]"

The Akaka bill is based on a theory of the Constitution that Congress has the power to single out any group of so-called "indigenous" people, help then create a government, and give that government federal recognition as a (phony) Indian tribe. Some scholars believe that indigenous people (anyone with one drop of aboriginal blood) have a permanent, continuing, unalienable right to self-determination. They can never give up or negotiate away their claims to the land and resources of their ancestral homeland. Granting federal recognition to ethnic Hawaiians as "an indigenous people" gets the ball rolling toward secession. Naliko Kahoali'i Markel put it well in a letter-to-editor in the Maui News of July 8, 2005: "Sovereignty fight about national pride, not the Akaka Bill. An aboriginal Hawaiian, or kanaka maoli, will always be able to claim his or her inherent right to exist and to pursue life, liberty and happiness on his or her ancestral land base. Kanaka maoli have an inherent human and civil right to create and maintain a national government according to and abiding by international law. The United States of America has admitted in Public Law 1993, 103-150 that it violated its own Constitution, its treaties, international law and, by implication, all of the Christian teachings by perpetrating an outrageous armed theft of the Kingdom of Hawaii and the forced American citizenship of Hawaiian national citizens. America recognized in 1894 [message to Congress from President Grover Cleveland, withdrawing a proposed treaty of annexation with Hawai'i], and again in 1993 [apology resolution], that the Kingdom of Hawaii has a right to exist.

======================

A SYMPOSIUM WAS HELD AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN NEW YORK APRIL 15-16, 2005 ON THE TOPIC OF ACHIEVING SOVEREIGN INDEPENDENCE FOR OPPRESSED PEOPLE SUBJUGATED BY THE UNITED STATES, INCLUDING AMERICAN INDIAN TRIBES, PUERTO RICO, HAWAI'I, GUAM, AND AMERICAN SAMOA. THE PROGRAM FOR THE SYMPOSIUM IS COPIED BELOW. 25% OF ALL THE MAJOR PRESENTATIONS ARE FOCUSED ON HAWAI'I. PRESENTERS INCLUDE HAWAIIAN INDEPENDENCE ACTIVISTS ALONG WITH THE PROFESSOR WHO WROTE THE HAWAIIAN APOLOGY RESOLUTION AND IS A SUPPORTER OF THE AKAKA BILL.

There are important connections among the movements for Hawaiian independence, Puerto Rican independence, and Guam independence. Those connections are conceptual, emotional, and practical. For example, anti-military and pro-independence paid agitators have shuttled between Hawai'i and Puerto Rico at the time when live-fire training was being done by the Army in Hawai'i's Makua Valley and by the Navy in Vieques. Puerto Rican independence terrorists fired shots in the U.S. Congress 50 years ago injuring five Members of Congress. One of those terrorists, having been pardoned in the final days of the Clinton administration, was applauded at a political rally of Hawaiian independence activists when she was introduced to the crowd by a Puerto Rican who is active in the Hawaiian independence movement and who holds a faculty position at a University of Hawai'i institute for peace! For background informatiuon about these things, see:
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/puertoricoguam.html

The announcement below was circulated on the internet in March 2005 to encourage radical activists (especially from Hawai'i) to attend the symposium. Note the following presentations that are part of this conference (in the order they are listed in the announcement):

Jon Osorio, Associate Professor at the University of Hawai'i and Chairman of the Center for Hawaiian Studies, is a Hawaiian independence activist. Topic: "Conflicting interpretations of Sovereignty in Hawai`i and the Historic Roots of 'Disunity'"

Davianna McGregor, Professor of Ethnic Studies at the University of Hawai'i. She was the author of the Apology Resolution passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1993, placing the United States on record apologizing to ethnic Hawaiians for the U.S. role in the 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom. Her topic in this symposium: "Recognizing Native Hawaiians: Reality Bites." Professor McGregor has consistently supported the Akaka bill to recognize ethnic Hawaiians as comparable to an Indian tribe. The title of her paper (especially the phrase "reality bites") seems to confirm what she has previously implied: that she supports the Akaka bill only because Hawai'i is firmly under the boot of the U.S.A. For example, in a major commentary in the Honolulu Advertiser of April 25, 2004 she said "I support the unique and distinct rights and entitlements of Native Hawaiians as ancestral vested rights of inheritance from our ancestors who first settled and established sovereignty over the Hawaiian archipelago. The Akaka bill affords the best protection for these rights as long as Hawai'i is under the United States." See:
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Apr/25/op/op10a.html

Robert Underwood, formerly the elected Delegate to Congress for the Territory of Guam, is currently a Professor at the University of Guam). He served as Chair of the Chamorro Language Commission and also was active in the political status task force (seeking a plebiscite leading to independence) established by the government of Guam. Topic: "The Convergence of the Issues of Sovereignty, Political Status and Indigenous Rights in Guam. "

L. Lehuanani Lono Yim of Brandeis University). Topic: Legacies of Oni v. Meek: Property, Custom, and the Living Law of the Kingdom of Hawai`i.

Ahimsa Timoteo Bodhran of Michigan State University). Topic: ‘Oiwi Gender and Sexual Shifts in the Nationalist Agenda of Haunani-Kay Trask

----------------

** Here is the symposium's program as announced in late March, 2005: **

Despite a minor ripple of attention to Native Americans over the course of last year due to the founding of the Native American Museum in Washington D.C. and the appreciation of Puerto Rican voters in swing-states like Florida, Native American, Pacific Islander and Puerto Rican sovereignty matters are rarely the subject of public discourse and are severely understudied in most U.S. universities, including in areas such as comparative law, gender studies, and American studies. Comparative research across groups and disciplines is also alarmingly infrequent.

In an effort to spur debate regarding the multiple meanings and discourses of sovereignty, examine how these questions are (or not) constitutive of Native American, Pacific Islander, and Puerto Rican Studies, promote comparative work, and engage with the broader implications of nation-building in the U.S., the Center for the Study of Ethnicity and Race at Columbia University invites paper and round table proposals for an international, interdisciplinary, conference focused on sovereignty debates.